facilitating children's transition to school from families with complex

39
Facilitating children’s transition to school from families with complex support needs SUE DOCKETT, BOB PERRY & EMMA KEARNEY Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia ANNE HAMPSHIRE Mission Australia, Sydney, Australia JAN MASON & VIRGINIA SCHMIED University of Western Sydney, Australia This research has been undertaken with assistance from Community Services, NSW Department of Human Services. However, the information and views contained in this study do not necessarily, or at all, reflect the views or information held by the NSW Government, the Minister for Human Services or the Department of Human Services.

Upload: vannguyet

Post on 04-Jan-2017

233 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Facilitating children’s transition

to school from families with

complex support needs

SUE DOCKETT, BOB PERRY & EMMA KEARNEY

Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW, Australia

ANNE HAMPSHIRE

Mission Australia, Sydney, Australia

JAN MASON & VIRGINIA SCHMIED

University of Western Sydney, Australia

This research has been undertaken with assistance from Community Services, NSW Department of Human Services.

However, the information and views contained in this study do not necessarily, or at all, reflect the views or

information held by the NSW Government, the Minister for Human Services or the Department of Human Services.

Executive Summary 1

Glossary 5

Background 7

Research focus and approach 12

Decision points, issues and concerns for families with complex support needs as their children start school 18

Supports for families and children before school and in the first year of school 24

Enabling practices and processes that facilitate the transition to school for children of families with complex support needs 29

Policy directions for promoting the transition to school for children of families with complex support needs 31

Conclusions 32

Endnotes 33

References 34

Acknowledgement

Many people have contributed to the project outlined in this report. We have been appreciative of the support and expertise of

Samia Michail, Kathryn di Nicola, Eileen Ross, Cathy Bell, Rachel Neaum, Marie-Claire Kurt and staff, past and present, from the

partner organisations who have generously shared their time, skills and insights. We also want to express our deep thanks to the

project participants who shared their experiences and aspirations with us, often over extended periods of time, in varied locations

and at times of stress. We thank you all.

ISBN 978-1-86467-230-5

©2011 Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University

<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/>

Facilitating children's transition to school from families with complex support needs by Dockett, S. Perry, B. Kearney, E. Hampshire, A. Mason, J. Schmied, V. <http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/publications/index.htm> is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/>.

Suggested Citation: Dockett, S. Perry, B. Kearney, E. Hampshire, A. Mason, J. Schmied, V. (2011). Facilitating children’s transition to school fromfamilies with complex support needs Albury: Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University.

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/publications/index.htm

Contents

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

1 from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

Executive Summary

Background

This report reinforces the importance of the transition to

school for children from families with complex support

needs. For all children and families, but particularly for those

with complex support needs, the transition to school is a

time of both opportunity and vulnerability.

Families with complex support needs are those experiencing

multiple challenges related to children, parents or the whole

family. These could encompass poverty, unemployment, ill

health, substance abuse, experiences of violence or trauma,

poor educational outcomes, truancy, behavioural problems,

isolation and/or responding to family members with

disabilities or special education needs (Katz, Spooner, &

valentine, 2007). The combination of challenges presents a

range of stresses for these families.

In some literature, these families are referred to as

vulnerable, disadvantaged, or at risk. The term complex

support needs is used in this report as a means to avoid the

stigma often associated with these other terms. The

terminology of complex support needs acknowledges the

challenges faced by families, focuses on the interaction of

different problems and highlights ways in which families,

with appropriate support, can draw on their own strengths to

make positive changes in their lives.

Points of transition provide opportunities to establish

patterns of interaction and support. The transition to school is

a point where contexts and supports change, and where

interactions between families and schools set the scene for

ongoing engagement in education. Acknowledging that

families with complex support needs often have less

involvement with schools than other families, this report

identifies the aspirations of participating families for their

children and the practices and supports that make positive

engagement with education possible.

Study aims

This research explored the experiences of families with

complex support needs around the transition to school. Using

methodology based on strengths-based principles, the

research focused on decision points and the issues

surrounding these, as well as the available supports for

families and children in the year before and the year after the

start of school. From this, the research identified a number of

contextual factors, processes, practices and policies that

provide support for families and children across the transition.

The research from which this report is drawn was

undertaken in diverse areas of NSW during 2006 -2009. The

starting point for the research was recognition that children

starting school is a point of transition for all involved –

children, families and educators. It is one of the key points at

which families seek support and where a significant impact

on the well-being of children (and potentially their families)

can be made. The transition to school has the potential to be

a time of relationship building, where families, children,

educators and communities make the connections that

promote positive engagement with school. Positive

relationships and engagement with school are linked to the

development of resilience among young people (Smart,

Sanson, Baxter, Edwards, & Hayes, 2008).

There is evidence that families with complex support needs

are less likely than others to have positive relationships and

engagement with schools (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999; Smart

et al., 2008). There are many possible reasons for this,

including the impacts of issues such as cultural and language

differences, poverty, unemployment, dislocation, violence,

illness or disability on family functioning and confidence. Yet

many families who experience these same issues do forge

positive relationships with schools and their children do

experience academic and social success.

Four factors make this research significant. Firstly, the

strengths-based approach ensured that families were not

considered in terms of the sum of their problems. Rather,

both their everyday problems as well as the strengths they

demonstrated in managing these were considered.

Secondly, the transition to school experiences provided a

focal point for interactions between researchers and families.

This interaction occurred at a time when families often

sought additional advice, and welcomed involvement with

researchers. Thirdly, the long term interactions between

families and researchers led to an in-depth understanding of

the experiences of many participants and the implications of

a positive transition to school for all involved. Finally, the

experiences of families provided evidence of the issues

encountered, as well as the policies and practices that

facilitated positive and ongoing engagement with their

children’s education. Policy directions that build on this

evidence are noted in the report.

2

Research questions

The key research question How can positive transitions to

school be facilitated for children from families with complex

support needs? was addressed through a series of

sub-questions:

• What are the decision points, issues and concerns for

families with complex support needs as their children

start school?

• What supports are required, available and accessible for

these families and their children during the year before

school and their first year of school?

• What facilitates the transition to school for children of

families with complex support needs?

• What implications for policy and practice can be drawn

from this research?

Research focus and approach

Participants in the study were families with complex support

needs, who had already engaged in some way with support

programs offered by two of the project partners (Community

Services, NSW Department of Human Services and Mission

Australia), and who had a child eligible to start school during

the period of the research. Participants were drawn from

diverse geographical regions across NSW. Over 50% of

participating families resided outside metropolitan areas,

with many living in regional or rural areas. Participation in this

research was offered as an adjunct to involvement in existing

programs. Forty-four families were engaged in the project

over periods ranging from 1-24 months.

Qualitative methodology was employed to gain insights into

the lived experiences of these participants. Researchers met

with family members – predominantly mothers – to conduct

conversational interviews about the decisions, issues and

concerns experienced by families as their children made the

transition to school. The starting point for each conversational

interview was what had been happening for the child about to

start school and the family. In addition, researchers

interviewed some early intervention/family support staff and

invited teachers of some of the children who had started

school to reflect on the transition and to complete a Strengths

and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997).

The interviews with the families adopted a conversational

framework (Burgess-limerick & Burgess-limerick, 2011) and

were largely guided by the needs of the interviewees. They

focused on matters related to starting school and

interactions about the child, family, prior-to-school setting,

school and community. Interviews with teachers and agency

staff adopted a more semi-structured approach with key

questions used to stimulate discussion.

Results

An effective transition to school for children is marked by a

positive approach to school and a sense of belonging and

engagement. Appropriate supports and enabling practices,

processes and policies contributed to effective transition

experiences for children and families.

Decision points, issues and concerns

Key decision points for families included choosing the right

school for their child and identifying their child as ready for

school. Even when school choices were limited, families

were anxious that the school environment should recognise

their children’s strengths and unique qualities. Families

prioritised children’s happiness at school, regarding this as a

key element in educational success. All families regarded ‘a

good education’ as essential for their children’s later life

success and many held high aspirations for positive

educational outcomes. Children’s readiness for school was

often considered in terms of the school – that is, families

sought a match between the qualities demonstrated by their

child and the school they would attend. Particularly when

children had special education needs, there was concern that

they could be ready for one school (such as a special school),

but not ready for a different school (such as the local

mainstream school). Anxiety was increased when children

were unable to attend the preferred school.

Key issues identified by families were their own (or other

family members’) experiences of school and the legacy of

these, and the shifts in parenting that they reported

occurring across the time of transition. Families often

confronted their own experiences of school as their children

made the transition. Where these experiences had been less

than positive, parents feared that the same would be the

case for their children. This was particularly so when children

were identified as having challenging behaviour. The issues

identified had both positive and negative elements. For

example, several parents reported reasonably positive

experiences of their own schooling as well as positive

attitudes towards being involved in their children’s education.

Similarly, several parents appreciated the changes in

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

3

parenting that occurred as children stated school, particularly

the involvement of other adults in their children’s lives. The

ways in which educators responded to families and children

across the transition was a major factor in determining how

these issues influenced interactions.

Key concerns for families related to their children’s behaviour

at school, family engagement with school, and the financial

pressures of having children at school. Families were often

unsure of the expectations of school and concerned that

their child might be labelled as disruptive or unruly. Overall,

parents supported the notion of being engaged with the

school, but many were unsure about how this might happen.

While a number of parents commented on the easing of

financial pressures with not having to pay fees for preschool

or child care, several also noted the considerable costs

involved in equipping children for school.

Support

All of the families involved in the project had sought support

in some way. Many relied on the informal support of family

and friends; others were socially isolated and turned more to

agency support. For many families, the combination of

informal and formal support was critical to their well-being.

The availability and accessibility of support varied

considerably across communities. In some communities,

support was limited or intermittent. This was particularly so in

some rural communities, where professionals travelled from

major towns. Professional support was valued when it

focused on meeting the identified needs within families and

on building skills and capacities within those families.

In addition to the transition to school, many families and

children experienced a transition across support services. This

transition was rarely smooth or continuous. Indeed, there

was a great deal of discontinuity in support during the period

of transition to school. This caused high levels of anxiety and

stress for many families. For example, targeted early

childhood programs ceased as children started school. These

included family support and parenting programs as well as

services for children, including those with special needs. A

further factor influencing the availability of support was the

shortage of specialised, professional staff and high levels of

staff burnout and turnover among those who were available.

Enabling practices

While practices that supported the positive transition to

school of children from families with complex support needs

varied according to the family and their context, common

elements of enabling practices were that they:

• provided access to information about school;

• assisted in making positive connections with schools;

• promoted the development of family skills and abilities;

• acknowledged transition as a time when families seek, and

are responsive to, input; and

• recognised challenges that reside outside the family, for

example in the neighbourhood or community.

Key practices identified by families and staff throughout this

project were:

• professionals acting as mediators for families in

interactions with schools and other services;

• providing information for families about schools, processes

for enrolment, services and support available within

schools; and

• transition to school programs.

Enabling processes

Processes that supported the positive transition to school of

children from families with complex support needs were

those that emphasised:

• continuity of support across the transition to school;

• alignment of funded programs across the transition,

including alignment of funding and access to support;

• cross-sector collaboration;

• support that changes as family needs change;

• service flexibility and responsiveness to each family’s

changing situations;

• adaptation of services and support to local contexts; and

• professional development opportunities for staff.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

4

Enabling policies

A number of enabling practices and processes contribute to

enabling environments. When these are combined with

enabling policies, a range of positive outcomes for children,

families, educators and other professionals, as well as the

community, are identified. In this context enabling policy:

• recognises transition to school as a time of additional

stress for families;

• provides access to appropriate transition programs for

children and families;

• facilitates the development and implementation of

programs that are built on family strengths and responsive

to their needs;

• supports programs that promote family-school

partnerships;

• retains provisions for support across the transition to school;

• promotes availability of a range of complementary, yet

coordinated, supports for families over the transition period;

• facilitates the implementation of flexible and responsive

support programs, adapted for family and community

contexts;

• recognises the key roles of a professional, multi-disciplinary

workforce in supporting families at times of transition; and

• promotes transdisciplinary, multi-agency collaboration in

family centred practice.

Conclusion

The transition to school is a time of opportunity – a time of

change as children start school and as families seek and are

responsive to intervention. It is also a time of vulnerability,

where children and families move from known contexts and

supports to unknown contexts, often without continuity of

support and with the need to access different services,

different people and different experiences. Recognising the

strengths that children and families bring with them to

school, using this as the basis for promoting positive

engagement at school and maintaining a network of

coordinated support delivered by well-qualified professionals

will do much to build on the opportunities and reduce the

vulnerabilities encountered.

Support for the project

The project Facilitating children’s transition to school within

families with complex support needs was funded through an

Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP0669546, in

partnership with Charles Sturt University, University of

Western Sydney, Mission Australia and Community Services,

NSW Department of Human Services.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

5

AEDI Australian Early Development Index

Brighter Futures An early intervention program funded by Community Services, NSW Department of Human

Services. The program is delivered by both Community Services and a range of non-

government organisations across NSW.

Complex support needs Families with complex support needs are those experiencing multiple challenges involving

children, parents or the whole family. These challenges could encompass poverty,

unemployment, ill health, substance abuse, experiences of violence or trauma, poor

educational outcomes, truancy, behavioural problems, isolation and/or responding to family

members with disabilities or special education needs.

DET New South Wales Department of Education and Training

Disability The term disability includes children with an intellectual disability, physical disability, vision

impairment, hearing impairment, language disorder, mental health conditions or autism.

Community Services An agency of the New South Wales Department of Human Services. At the time the

research commenced, this agency was referred to as the Department of Community

Services. In this report, the recent change in name is reflected.

Early Intervention Services provided for children under the age of 5 years with developmental disabilities,

(EI) Services including special education, speech pathology, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and

family support.

Educational transition A time when people change their role and status within or between educational settings.

Educators As a collective term, includes teachers as well as other staff employed in education

services, including prior-to-school settings.

Family Any group of people connected through kinship or relationship and committed to providing

emotional and economic support to each other.

Family engagement The interaction of the family with their children’s educational context. This can include

in education helping children with homework, engaging in discussions at home about school, and

adopting the language and expectations of school at home. It can also extend to the families

adopting active roles in their interactions with schools and teachers.

First day of school The actual day children start school.

Integrated services Services that are connected in ways that create a comprehensive and cohesive

system of support.

Glossary

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

6

Glossary (continued)

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

P & C Parents and Citizens Association.

Prior-to-school The years before children attend school. Prior-to-school services include preschool, child

care, family day care, occasional care and playgroups.

School readiness A multifaceted concept incorporating children’s readiness for school, ready schools as well

as the family and community supports required to promote children’s optimal development

and learning.

SDQ Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

SEIFA Socio-economic indexes for areas. Developed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics from

2006 Census data.

Social capital Cultural resources and interpersonal bonds shared by community members.

Special education needs Educational needs of children with learning difficulties, a behaviour disorder

and/or a disability.

Strengths-based Strengths-based approaches acknowledge challenges, recognise strengths, and respect

approaches the experiences and efforts of families as they identify and work towards their own goals

for change.

Transition to school The process of starting school. Transition to school occurs over an extended period of time

as children engage in a range of experiences that promote their learning, development and

wellbeing. The transition process starts when parents and children begin to think about, and

make decisions related to, school. It concludes when children and families feel secure and

accepted within the school environment.

Transition to A set of activities or events for children starting school and their families.

school program

7

Much has been written recently about the importance of a

positive transition to school for all children, but particularly

those described as living in disadvantaged circumstances,

including children of families with complex support needs. A

number of consistent messages are identified from the

extensive and expanding research base. The key messages

related to the transition to school and supporting families

with complex support needs are summarised below. The

interconnection between these areas provides the rationale

for this research project.

Key messages from recent research: Transition to school

1. The transition to school is an important time for children

and families. Children’s positive engagement with school,

their construction of school identities and the relationships

they develop all have an impact on their later school

success. For families, the transition to school can be a

time when assistance is sought and likely to be accepted.

2. Transition to school involves much more than measures of

children’s readiness for school.

3. Children’s perspectives of school and their place

within school impact on their educational engagement

and outcomes.

4. There is consistent evidence that growing up in

disadvantaged circumstances can have a negative impact

on children’s development and educational outcomes,

including their transition to school.

5. Family engagement in education is identified as a key

factor in children’s school success. Just as important

as what families do to support children at school is

their rationale for this. Much of the pattern of family

engagement is set when children make the transition

to school.

Key messages from recent research: Familieswith complex support needs

1. Any one family may be described in many different,

sometimes even contradictory ways, depending on

contexts and circumstances. Analysing the risk and

protective factors associated with particular families

provides one basis for the development and

implementation of intervention and prevention programs.

Considering the family in a range of contexts and focusing

on strengths is an important alternative.

2. Strengths-based approaches require recognition of

strengths as well as respect for experience and efforts

to help people identify and work towards their own goals

for change.

3. Programs that have been successful in engaging families

with complex support needs have built upon existing

family strengths, avoided judgemental approaches,

recognised families as experts on their own experiences

and needs, and promoted positive relationships as the

core to effective parenting.

4. The nature, type and extent of the support accessed by

families with complex support needs influences the

transition to school.

5. Workforce issues have the potential to undermine the

effectiveness of programs for families with complex

support needs.

Transition to school

Transition to school marks a major change for children and

their families. With appropriate information and support,

many children and families find the start of school a time of

excitement (Dockett & Perry, 2005a). However, for some,

this can be a challenging time as they change their roles and

identity, and seek to understand new people, environments

and expectations, within the school culture (Dockett & Perry,

2007; Griebel & Niesel, 2002). There is consistent evidence

that making a positive start to school is important for later

social and educational outcomes (Alexander & Entwisle,

1998; Duncan et al., 2007; Reynolds & Bezruczko, 1993).

Children who experience a positive start to school are well

positioned to make the most of the educational opportunities

they meet. Conversely, children who experience academic

and social difficulties in their start to school are likely to

continue having problems throughout their school careers,

and often into adulthood (Birch & Ladd, 1997; Blair, 2001).

The transition to school is a process that occurs over an

extended period of time as children engage in a range of

experiences that promote their learning, development and

wellbeing. The transition process starts when parents and

children begin to think about, and make decisions related to,

school. It extends beyond the first day of school and

concludes when children and families feel secure and

accepted within the school environment. The process of

transition to school is essentially a period of adjustment, as

people change their roles and relationships with regard to

school. Transition programs – a series of events or activities

Background

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

8

for children starting school and their families – can support

the transition process by providing opportunities to build and

maintain relationships among children and adults (Dockett &

Perry, 2007; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003).

This definition of transition is drawn from ecological theory

(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) which emphasises the

ways in which contexts as well as the people within them,

impact on experience. Ecological models situate

responsibility for an effective transition to school with all

involved in the process. This broad view recognises that

there are many contributors to transition experiences and

that the perspectives and expectations of each of these

contributors shape those experiences in some way.

Discussions of transition often refer to children’s readiness

for school. While children’s skills and abilities do contribute

to their adjustment to school, recent research also highlights

the importance of school factors as well as family and

community supports in understanding notions of readiness

(Centre for Community Child Health, 2008; Dockett & Perry,

2009). Many factors influence the process of transition to

school, including the readiness of children, families, schools

and communities. Over-emphasis on any one of these

factors has the potential to ignore the interaction between

factors and the broader processes of relationship building

which are the core of a positive transition to school

(Ackerman & Barnett, 2005; Farrar, Goldfeld, & Moore, 2007).

Transition to school involves a wide range of people. A great

deal of research has investigated transition to school from

the perspectives of teachers and parents. Until recently,

there has been less research focus on children’s

perspectives of this transition. There is now strong evidence

that children experience the transition in different ways from

adults and that those experiences influence the nature and

outcomes of the transition (Broström, 1998; Clarke &

Sharpe, 2003; Corsaro & Molinari, 2000; Dockett & Perry,

2005b; Einarsdottir, 2010; Griebel & Niesel, 2003; Perry &

Dockett, 2005; Peters, 2003).

The importance of considering children’s perspectives of the

transition to school is twofold. On one hand, the increasing

recognition of children’s rights to contribute to discussions

and decisions about matters that affect them, derived from

the Convention of the Rights of the Child (United Nations,

1989), and recognition of their competence as participants

and social actors (Christensen & James, 2008; Greene & Hill,

2005; Prout, 2003) underpins strategies to actively seek,

listen and respond to children’s perspectives. On the other

hand, there is evidence that children’s feelings about school

predict engagement and educational outcomes (Hauser-

Cram, Durand, & Warfield, 2007).

Children’s experiences at home and in their community

influence their preparation for, transition to, and engagement

in, school. Some experiences, such as attending high quality

preschool, have been linked to children making a positive

start to school (Magnuson & Shager, 2010). Other

experiences have been linked to problematic engagement

with schools, including the transition to school. For example,

growing up in poverty can restrict children’s access to

resources and learning opportunities, and the anxieties

associated with living in poverty can impact upon the nature

and quality of interactions between parents and children

(Magnuson & Shager, 2010; Ryan, Fauth, & Brooks-Gunn,

2006; Smart et al., 2008). This, in turn, can impact on how

children and parents engage with school. Living in poverty

can also mean that children have limited access to high

quality prior-to-school services. Poverty remains pervasive in

Australian society, with estimates that almost 15% of

children live in families experiencing poverty. This figure is

much higher for Indigenous communities, where almost half

of the families are estimated to be experiencing poverty

(Hilferty, Redmond, & Katz, 2009).

High rates of poverty or other problems within communities

limit both the supportiveness and the stability of those

communities. Where this occurs, communities may find it

difficult to promote a sense of belonging and provide

resources to support families. Communities with strong

levels of social capital (Putnam, 2000) are well placed to

provide a buffer as well as support when families experience

challenges. In communities where there are few connections

among members, and where resources and supports are

limited, families often feel isolated and overwhelmed. Links

between the collective well-being of communities and

children’s engagement with school are noted in results from

the implementation of the Australian Early Development

Index (AEDI) (Centre for Community Child Health and

Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, 2009).

While there is a clear connection between family resources

and children’s educational outcomes, evidence from the

Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project in

the UK indicates that family experiences and interactions can

be more important than the resources of families. Siraj-

Blatchford (2010, pp. 466-467) concludes that “families do

have the capacity to support their children in different ways

when they have the will, the means and an understanding of

the need to do so”.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

9

Once children start school, one of the major sources of

support is family engagement (Barnard, 2004; Henderson &

Mapp, 2002). How families engage with school and education

can vary considerably, from helping children with homework,

discussing school at home, and adopting the language and

expectations of school at home, through to adopting active

roles in interactions with schools and teachers. The nature

and extent of family engagement in schools is influenced by

factors such as socio-economic status, cultural and language

diversity, community expectations and parent or family

characteristics. In some communities, families are hesitant to

become involved in schools, particularly if the culture of

school is different from that of the home (Huntsinger & Jose,

2009). In other communities, economic stress and

neighbourhood tension contribute to low levels of family

engagement. Greater family engagement is reported when

parents feel confident about their ability to influence what

happens at school, and when they have high expectations for

their children (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2005; Lareau &

Weininger, 2008; Lee & Bowen, 2006). The responsiveness of

schools and teachers themselves and their willingness to

recognise many different forms of engagement is an

important factor in promoting family engagement (Peters,

Seeds, Goldstein, & Coleman, 2007).

Positive home-school relationships are important at all times,

but particularly so at points of educational transition, when

patterns of interaction are established (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,

2000; McTaggart & Sanders, 2003). This is particularly the case

for families who are positioned as outside the mainstream in

some way, including families with complex support needs

(Homel et al., 2006; Lahaie, 2008; Shepherd & Walker, 2008;

Sims, Guilfoyle, Kulisa, Targowska, & Teather, 2008).

Despite the recognised importance of family engagement in

schools, there is evidence that many families do not actively

engage with schools, often for a range of structural or

psychological reasons (Brooker, 2003; Christenson, 2004).

Lack of engagement in school does not necessarily reflect

disinterest. Indeed, many families report a willingness to be

involved that is thwarted by not knowing how to achieve this,

or feelings that their involvement is not valued (Bernard van

Leer Foundation, 2007).

The transition to school is an important time for all children

and families. How families and children navigate the

transition process has implications for their ongoing

engagement in education and for children’s educational

outcomes. For many families – notably those with complex

support needs – the transition to school is one of many

situations to be managed. The nature of support available at

this time can have an impact on the outcomes of the

transition to school.

Families with complex support needs

Families with complex support needs have been described as

...experiencing multiple problems, which might be

problems for the parents, for the children, or for the

whole family. Examples... include problems relating to

housing, finances, ill health, childcare, substance abuse,

family violence and abuse, poor educational outcomes,

truancy. (Katz, et al., 2007, p. 33)

It is often the combination of problems that presents

challenges and stresses for these families. In some

literature, these families are referred to as vulnerable,

disadvantaged, or at risk. However, there is often a level of

stigma associated with these labels. The terminology of

complex support needs acknowledges the challenges faced

by families, focuses on the interaction of different problems

and highlights ways in which families, with appropriate

support, can draw on their own strengths to make positive

changes in their lives.

It is possible to identify a number of factors – both biological

and environmental – that increase the likelihood that families

will experience a range of contexts that pose risks for

children’s optimal development (Bowes, Grace & Hayes,

2009). Included in most lists of risk factors are child health;

maternal age, education and mental health; single-parent

household; and family income and environment (Japel,

2008). While recognising and responding to risk is important,

an exclusive focus on risk factor analysis has the potential to

ignore holistic approaches that recognise social and cultural

contexts as influential in determining developmental

outcomes. It can also promote a deficit, rather than strength-

based view of families.

Strengths-based approaches are based on recognition of

strengths, as well as respect for experience and efforts, to

help people identify and work towards their own goals for

change (Munford & Sanders, 2003). Respect and

collaboration are essential elements of strengths-based

approaches – respect for individuals and families, and a

commitment to building collaborative relationships based on

rapport and trust (Berg & Kelly, 2000; MacKinnon, 1999). This

approach is summarised by Beilharz (2002, p. 4) as “a way of

working with people, based on social justice values, that

recognises people’s and communities’ strengths and

facilitates their application to achieve self-determined goals”.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

10

Several programs with a focus on the transition to school

have been developed to support families with complex

support needs. The rationale for many of these is twofold:

supporting parents impacts on children through improved

parenting and family functioning (Kane, Wood, & Barlow,

2007); and the complex nature of challenges for these

families means that single focus programs are not relevant

(Day, 2008; Katz et al., 2007). Programs that have been

successful in engaging families with complex support needs

have built upon existing family strengths, avoided

judgemental approaches, recognised families as experts on

their own experiences and needs, and promoted positive

relationships as the core to effective parenting (Davis, Day,

& Bidmead, 2002; Holzer, Higgins, Bromfield, Richardson,

& Higgins, 2006; Katz, 2007).

In addition, successful programs have noted the significance of

the following in promoting sustained benefits:

• transition points, such as the transition to school, as times

when people seek assistance and when they are

responsive to help (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000);

• focus on both child and family (Homel et al., 2006);

• continuity of support (Brooks-Gunn, 2003);

• collaboration and coordination across multiple sectors,

including health, education, parenting and welfare

(Guenther & Millar, 2007); and

• integrated programs (Ramey, et al., 2004).

In several instances, the vehicle for successful programs has

been a focus on parenting, complemented by the flexibility

to explore issues and the interaction of issues relevant to

each family (Davis et al., 2002; Homel et al., 2006). For

example, one focus has often been on responding to

children’s challenging behaviour, a factor associated with

both families with complex support needs and children’s

problematic engagement with school (Ghate & Hazel, 2002;

Sektnan, McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2010).

Other programs have recognised the challenges of the

transition to school for children with special education needs,

particularly as families and children experience changes in

the nature and extent of support as children move from prior-

to-school to school settings (Bentley-Williams & Butterfield,

1996; Hoysted, 2010; Rosenkoetter, Hains, & Dogaru, 2007).

Reviews of the support provided for children with special

needs and their families conclude that continuous support is

a major factor in promoting positive educational engagement

(Guralnick, Neville, Hammond, & Connor, 2008; Janus,

Cameron, Lefort, & Kopechanski, 2007).

Recent trends in the development and delivery of programs

for children and families have highlighted the potential of

integrated services – services that are connected in ways

that create a comprehensive and cohesive system of

support. This approach recognises the diversity of families

and family experiences and the importance of families

accessing support that is relevant, timely and coordinated

(Centre for Community Child Health, 2009). Overseas

experience with integrated services indicates a range of

positive outcomes for both children and families (Dunst &

Bruder, 2002; Young et al., 2006).

One of the major challenges to the development of

integrated programs of support for families with complex

support needs is the presence of a suitably qualified

workforce to deliver them. This is particularly an issue in rural

and remote areas, but also can be a problem in areas

designated as disadvantaged (Hilferty, et al., 2009).

Collaboration across services is difficult when there are few

staff, when staff turnover is high, and when workloads

prevent all but a focus on the most urgent situations.

Establishing the nature and extent of the workforce engaged

with families with complex support needs is not easy. Often,

the same families are engaged with many different

professionals across different sectors. One of the key

elements in promoting collaboration and cooperation is to

identify who the workforce is, what overlaps and/or gaps

exist, and ways in which professionals in different sectors

can work together (Fisher, Thomson & valentine, 2006).

Once identified, efforts to develop relationships between

services and to promote a team approach to working with

families and children are at the core of effective integrated

programs. In this process, the background, experience and

leadership qualities of the staff involved all impact on the

quality of integration achieved (Choi, 2003). A recent report

from Children in Scotland (2008, p. 1) notes that “…many of

those working with the youngest and the most vulnerable

children and families are often the least well-qualified and

least well-paid of the workforce”. Efforts to promote

integrated services and support for families requires at the

very least an increased understanding of who is involved,

what services are accessible and what others are doing.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

11

Some integrated services support a transdisciplinary

approach to working with children and families, where a

range of professionals work together, with common goals

integrated across settings. This approach requires that

collaborating professionals work in harmony with each other

and with families, as they establish and work towards

common goals (Davies, 2007; Moore, 2006).

The promotion of integrated services and transdisciplinary

approaches, where a range of people and resources are

involved in working for the benefit of a specific child and

family is at the heart of ecological models of service delivery.

These models acknowledge that the wellbeing of individuals

is dependent on the complex interactions that take place

within family, school and community contexts. Each of these

contexts is influenced by broader social, cultural and political

factors (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).

Families with complex support needs and thetransition to school

It is well established that a range of challenges is experienced

by many families. Sometimes, points of transition contribute

to these challenges; at other times experiences over the

transition signal positive changes. The transition to school

offers both opportunities and challenges as families navigate

different institutions, personnel and supports.

The transition to school is a time of opportunity – when

children, families and educators recognise the changes as

children start school and as families seek and are responsive

to intervention. It is also a time of additional vulnerability,

where children and families move from known contexts and

supports to unknown contexts, often without continuity of

support and with the need to access different services,

different people and different experiences. Children and

families forge new identities across the transition to school –

as school students and as families of school students. New

identities bring new challenges in relation to expectations

and experiences. Recognising the strengths that children and

families bring with them to school, using this as the basis for

promoting positive engagement at school and maintaining a

network of coordinated support will do much to build on the

opportunities and reduce the vulnerabilities encountered.

There is evidence that families with complex support needs

are less likely than others to have positive relationships and

engagement with schools (Miedel & Reynolds, 1999; Smart

et al., 2008). There are many possible reasons for this,

including the impacts of issues such as cultural and language

differences, poverty, unemployment, dislocation, violence,

illness or disability on family functioning and confidence. Yet

many families who experience these same issues do forge

positive relationships with schools and their children

experience academic and social success.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

12

This research aimed to explore the experiences of families

with complex support needs around the transition to school.

Using methodology based on strengths-based principles, the

research focused on decision points and the issues

surrounding these, as well as the available supports for

families and children in the year before and the year after the

start of school. From this, the research identified a number of

contextual factors, processes, practices and policies that

provide support for families and children across the transition.

The key research question: How can positive transitions to

school be facilitated for children from families with complex

support needs? was addressed through a series of

sub-questions:

• What are the decision points, issues and concerns for

families with complex support needs as their children

start school?

• What supports are required, available and accessible for

these families and their children during the year before

school and their first year of school?

• What facilitates the transition to school for children of

families with complex support needs?

• What implications for policy and practice can be drawn

from this research?

This research used qualitative methods to gain insights to

the experiences of families with complex support needs and

their children starting school. Data were generated from a

series of regular discussions with project participants over a

period of time before and after children started school.

Discussions were recorded, transcribed and analysed using

existing and emergent themes. In addition, a series of case

studies was constructed to ensure that contextual factors

were considered in analysis and to provide a narrative

account of the experiences of several families. Discussion

themes and case studies were used to inform the

development of a conceptual model outlining policies,

practices and processes to support children and families

making a positive start to school.

The interviews with the families adopted a conversational

framework (Burgess-limerick & Burgess-limerick, 2011)

and were largely guided by the needs of the interviewees.

They focused on matters related to starting school and

interactions about the child, family, prior-to-school setting,

school and community. Interviews with teachers and agency

staff adopted a more semi-structured approach with key

questions used to stimulate discussion.

Conversational interviews are outlined by Burgess-limerick

and Burgess-limerick, (2011, p. 64) as a means of

gaining access to an individual’s interpretations of their

personal experiences ...In this model of interviewing,

the agenda for each interview is established interactively.

A recursive process is used in which the researcher’s

questions build upon responses to previous questions,

stories told by the same participant in previous

interviews... Each individual and situation produces a

unique agenda which allows the researcher to ground

the research completely in the experiences of

the participants.

Participants

Participants in the project were families who were already

engaged in some way with programs offered by project

partner organisations – Mission Australia and Community

Services, NSW Department of Human Services – and who

had a child eligible to start school during the time of the

study. Many, but not all, families were involved in the early

intervention program Brighter Futures (NSW Department of

Community Services, 2007).

The families were identified by partner organisations as

having a range of complex support needs. (These needs were

not disclosed to the researchers by those organisations.)

Families were invited to participate – the only connection

between existing programs and the research project was the

invitation to participate. In this way, participation was offered

as an adjunct to involvement in existing programs. The aim of

this approach was to collaborate with partner organisations

and to build on the strengths of existing relationships. Similar

approaches have been used in other projects (Cortis, Katz, &

Patulny, 2009; Watson & Tully, 2008; Watson, White, Taplin, &

Huntsman, 2005).

Project participants included one adult member of each

family. Forty-four families were engaged at various times

throughout the study, in six diverse locations across NSW,

Australia. Locations encompassed metropolitan, regional and

rural areas.

Other project participants included children, teachers and

staff from partner organisations. Discussions with these

participants were generally one-off events. Most

conversations with children occurred in their homes, in the

company of parents and/or other family members.

Discussions with teachers and organisation staff occurred in

their workplaces at times suitable for all involved.

Research Focus and Approach

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

13

Where possible, researchers engaged in informal

conversations with children about their experiences starting

school. Sometimes, children were prepared to draw their

experiences as they engaged in these conversations. In all

instances, researchers relied on advice from parents about the

appropriateness of engaging with children. In a number of

situations, parents advised against conversations with

children. Reasons provided included parental judgements that

the child had limited communication skills, often related to

special education needs or physical disabilities, or that children

did not wish to talk with researchers. As a result, data

contributed to the research by children is sparse. In

respecting these reasons for excluding children, the project

conformed to ethical requirements that young children only be

invited to participate in research with parental consent.

Eighteen school teachers participated in researcher interviews

about children’s adjustment to school and completed

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)[1](Goodman,

1997) for these children. This number reflected both parental

permission for researchers to approach teachers and teacher

willingness to be involved in the research.

Six staff from partner organisations involved in supporting

these families and children participated in discussions about

general service availability and delivery.

In summary, participants were:

• 44 family members;

• 10 children starting school;

• 18 Kindergarten teachers; and

• 6 staff from partner organisations.

Characteristics of participating families

Each of the families participating in the research was unique.

Their experiences reflected a wide range of complex support

needs within their specific contexts. Researchers relied on

families sharing what they thought was relevant to their

context and the research. Issues raised by families included:

• supporting children with a disability;

• experiencing chronic poverty/unemployment;

• responding to violence/trauma;

• experiencing isolation (geographic, social, cultural);

• children exhibiting behavioural difficulties;

• experiencing issues related to drug /alcohol use; and

• experiences of and with family members who experienced

mental health/ dependency issues.

Even when these descriptors were used, it was noted that

each family experienced these issues in different ways. The

contexts in which they lived also impacted on their

experiences. For example, a number of families included

children with special needs. While this is in itself a major

factor for the family, it was not necessarily sufficient for the

family to be nominated as having complex support needs.

However, when the family lived in a rural or isolated context,

had limited support, included more than one child with

special needs, or experienced other complexities, that family

was considered to have complex support needs.

Many families experienced layers of complexity. This is

illustrated in brief descriptions of study participants from

several families.

One family consisted of a single mother with 3 adult

sons, a 6-year-old son, and a daughter who was eligible

to start school in 2008. The mother experienced

depression and was supported by a case worker, a friend

and her children. She had lived in a rural NSW city for the

last 25 years and described herself as having had poor

experiences at school.

A man and his wife had full-time care of their

granddaughter, though they were not legally recognised

as her guardians. The man originated from the

Philippines but had lived in Australia for some time.

The granddaughter had Down syndrome and was

enrolled at a special school. The grandfather had recently

retired from his job to care for his granddaughter. He

had also recently undergone heart surgery. His daughter,

who retained parental custody of the granddaughter,

experienced a number of mental health issues and was

an intermittent presence in their lives.

Another family consisted of a mother and her 10 children.

Even though the mother was separated from her partner,

domestic violence remained an ongoing issue in her life.

She had no family support. The school-aged children

attended the same school as the mother had attended

as a child. She had negative memories of school and her

experiences. Some of her teachers remained at the

school and she believed that her children were

experiencing the same difficulties she had had. Her

children were frequent truants. Her attempts to change

schools and provide a fresh start for the children had

been unsuccessful. One of her sons indicated that he

ran away from school in order to make sure his mother

was safe during the day.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

14

A single mother of 7 children aged from 2-25 years

moved with her children to a regional area to access

emergency housing. She had no family or social

support. Her son, aged 5 was diagnosed with

Oppositional Defiance Disorder, possibly with ADHD.

He had a ‘phased’ transition to school, attending

for 2 hours per day.

A mother and her daughter lived in Western Sydney.

A son, aged 9, was removed several years previously

and had since been adopted by another family. His

mother saw him on supervised visits. The mother

had a complex and conflictual family history. Her

stepfather remained an ongoing source of support for

both mother and daughter. The daughter’s biological

father was an occasional presence, but the mother

regarded herself as having sole responsibility for her

daughter. The mother experienced bipolar disorder

and was on a methadone program. She had strong

connections to the local area, but found it difficult to

live there and wanted to move away, partly to make

sure her daughter had more positive experiences

than she had had.

The major data generation method in the research was

ongoing conversational discussion between family members

(predominantly mothers, Table 1) and teams of two

researchers about the transition experiences for the family

and child. All discussions were held in locations chosen by

participants. With permission, discussions were digitally

recorded and then transcribed for analysis. Where possible,

the same team of researchers remained involved in

discussions with families over the life of the research.

Table 1. Family members participating in the study

Participants

Mother 41

Father 1

Aunt 1

Grandfather 1

Initial meetings introduced the research and outlined what

was involved. In general, these meetings were considered

introductory and not recorded as data. In some instances,

family members attended these meetings accompanied by a

representative from the partner organisation with whom

they already had a relationship. Family members used these

staff as mediators, seeking information from them and

channelling their willingness to be involved in the study, or

not, through these personnel.

Where family members agreed to participate and provided

ongoing consent for this, follow-up discussions were

arranged. These were held in locations of the participants’

choosing, such as the facilities of the partner organisation,

coffee shops and other public spaces, as well as participants’

homes. Some discussions were conducted with partner

organisation staff in attendance; others were conducted

through interpreters. Some families invited partner

organisation staff to early discussions, but once relationships

had been established, chose to meet with researchers

without these staff.

Discussions with family members:

• explored the experiences of families and children across

the transition to school;

• focused on family strengths as well as challenges;

• examined the ways in which families used these strengths

to support their children as they make the transition to

school; and

• discussed ways in which families engaged in their

children’s school education.

The length of time family members stayed involved with the

study varied. Some family members met with researchers

only once and then either declined further discussions, or

did not arrive at follow-up meetings. Some families made

multiple appointments, but did not attend any of these.

Some family members missed several early attempts at

meeting, but then maintained ongoing involvement with

the study. The number of meetings with individual families

ranged from 1 to 6, over periods of 1 to 24 months.

Initially, the research design aimed for three discussions

with families: before children started school; at the time

children started school; and after children had been at school

for several months. In practice, the number of discussions

was determined jointly by the family and the researchers.

Figure 1 reflects family involvement across the number

of meetings.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

15

Figure 1. Family participation in discussions

Overall 70% (n = 31) of families participated in at least three

discussions. Of these, 24 families (55%) participated in

discussions beyond this, including four families who met

with researchers on six occasions. Thirty percent of families

(n = 13) engaged in less than three discussions, with seven

families (16%) participating in one discussion only. Table 2

represents the ongoing participation of families.

Table 2. Ongoing participation in discussions

Discussions Families participating

in discussions over time

Number Percentage

1 44 100

2 37 84

3 31 70

4 24 55

5 15 34

6 4 9

Total number of discussions 155*

* Of this total, 116 discussions were recorded as data, including 5 of the initial discussions

As indicated in Figure 1, the number of ongoing participants

declined over the time of the study. While this trend mirrors

other studies (Moran, Ghate, & van der Merwe, 2004), the

continued involvement of 70% of families in at least 3

discussions indicated a high level of retention and

engagement in the project. Continued participation

suggested that families found these meetings to be positive

experiences. This was confirmed by a number of mothers,

with comments such as:

I like it when you come down… it gives me someone to

talk to and it’s good. It’s nice to be able to talk about my

child without thinking about all the bad things he does.

Several strategies were used by the research team to

promote the continued engagement of family members.

These included:

• providing time for families to decide about participation;

• targeting the focus in interviews to issues of relevance to

the family involved;

• where appropriate, providing general support and advice.

Examples included discussions of transition to school

programs, ways to approach schools and experiences to

support children making the transition (Dockett et al., 2009);

• working through case workers and other partner agency

staff according to the preference of each family;

• recognising family strengths in interviews with families;

• maintaining contact with families – often through

agency staff;

• focusing on the what was happening for the whole

family; and

• providing a small payment ($20 voucher) for families

at each discussion.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

10

2

4

6

8

10

12

Maximum number of discussions

Num

ber

of fa

mili

es

2 3 4 5 6

16

Characteristics of research sites

Participant families resided in several diverse communities

across NSW. Forty-one of the 44 families identified their

residential area. From this, it was possible to consult Socio-

Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) [2] data and to consider

the relative measures of disadvantage related to these areas.

The SEIFA data are rankings of geographic areas using

scores generated from characteristics of people living in that

area, as reported on the 2006 Census. In each of the

indexes, relative disadvantage is associated with a low

number or decile. Table 3 reports the total number of

participant families who lived in areas associated with high

levels of disadvantage, according to each of the SEIFA

Indexes (deciles 1-4). From this, it is concluded that the

majority of participating families lived in areas characterised

by relative socio-economic disadvantage.

Table 3. Indexes of relative disadvantage for

participating families

SEIFA Indexes* Number and percentage

of families (n=41)

Index of Relative Socio-Economic 30 (73 %)

Advantage and Disadvantage.

Deciles 1-4

Index of Relative Socio-Economic 30 (73%)

Disadvantage

Deciles 1-4

Index of Education and Occupation 35 (85%)

Deciles 1-4

Index of Economic Resources 27 (66%)

Deciles 1-4

*based on collection district data

Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) [3] community

profiles report proportions of children considered to be

developmentally on track, developmentally at risk, and

developmentally vulnerable across five domains. The AEDI

classifies children who score in the lowest 10% of the AEDI

population for any given domain as developmentally

vulnerable; children who fall between the 10th and 25th

percentiles of the AEDI population are considered to be

developmentally at risk. Children who are ranked above the

25th percentile are considered to be developmentally on

track (Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for

Child Health Research, 2009).

AEDI community profiles provide information about the

proportions of children rated as developmentally vulnerable

on two or more domains for the areas in which participating

families lived. Across Australia, the average proportion of

children classified as developmentally vulnerable on two or

more domains is 11.8%; across NSW, this average is 10.3%.

Almost half of participant families (49%) lived in

communities where the proportion of children considered to

be developmentally vulnerable on two or more domains

exceeded this average.

When considered alongside information about specific family

challenges, this information illustrates some of the additional

complexity experienced by participating families related to

the communities in which they lived.

Data and analysis

Data for this project consists of:

• 116 transcripts of discussions with families over the

year prior to the child starting school and into the first

year of school;

• 13 detailed case studies constructed from

these discussions;

• conversations with 10 children;

• drawings completed by some children;

• interviews with Kindergarten teachers in relation to the

transition experiences of 18 children ;

• SDQs completed by teachers for 18 children;

• discussions with staff (n=6) from partner organisations

and service providers in three of the research sites; and

• records of research team meetings and reflexive

discussions around the project.

Data analysis was a multi-layered process that involved the

following stages.

• Initial reading and re-reading of transcripts.

• Identification of text to be analysed further. In order to

preserve the contextual elements of data, segments for

analysis were retained as complete statements.

• Categorisation of data. Data segments were labelled and

grouped by category, then examined and compared at

both the within category and between category levels.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

17

• Aggregation of categories to form themes. Themes were

considered as a set of relationships between categories.

The themes adopted reflected those identified in previous

research and literature, as well as emergent themes.

• Saturation was reached when themes were fully

developed and new evidence did not prompt the inclusion

of new themes.

• Interconnections between themes were identified and

used as the basis for the development of a conceptual

model of relationships.

One of the challenges in the categorisation of data is that

contextual elements are removed when categorical order

replaces chronological order (Maxwell & Miller, 2008). To

provide a counter to this, a series of case studies was

constructed, with the aim of retaining the unique context of

each case and exploring key relationships within the narrative

of the case. Where relevant, data contributed by children,

Kindergarten teachers and staff from partner organisations

were included in case studies.

The diversity of the experiences and backgrounds of the

research team (encompassing education, social work, family

support, social justice, service provision and participatory

research with children) ensured that multiple perspectives

and issues were addressed throughout the research, but

particularly in data analysis (Dockett et al., 2009).

Ethical considerations

The study reported here was granted ethics approval by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Western Sydney (Protocol Number HREC 06/123). It has been carried out with particular reference to therequirements of this committee and the National Statementon Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans 2007(NHMRC, 2007).

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

18

This section addresses the research question: What are the

decision points, issues and concerns for families with

complex support needs as their children start school?

All families make decisions as their children start school.

The two mentioned most often by families in this project

related to the school children would attend and children’s

school readiness. These decisions were influenced by

parent/ family experiences of school and issues about the

nature of parenting at the transition to school. Concerns

were expressed about the impact of children’s behaviour

on the transition process and outcomes, the nature of

family engagement with school and the financial pressures

associated with school enrolment.

Choosing the ‘right’ school

Families regarded it as their role to make decisions about the

‘right’ school for their child. This decision was influenced by

the location and safety of the school, and by perceptions of

the responsiveness of staff they met at the school. The

reputation of the school within the community and among

family and friends also influenced this decision.

A mother visited all the schools in her local area, finally

deciding which school would be best for her son. She

explained her choice:

As soon as I walked into that school I liked it. I never even

thought about putting them up here at [school A] because

it’s just yuk. You just look at it and you just go [shudder]

no. [School X] was our first choice... It’s a bigger school

but it’s excellent. Then I tried for [school Y], which was

second choice and [school Z]. But I went to [school Z],

as soon as I walked through I just felt like I was in jail or

something. It was just all bars and gates and stuff.

This one [school Y] is all open ... they’ve got the

biggest playground in the world... Their classes are

small, they don’t have many children. Most of the kids

there are pretty good...

Some families had little choice about the schools their

children attended – for example where there was only one

local school, school zones were enforced or where there

were limited places within specialist services. In spite of

these constraints, the same concerns about the school being

‘right’ for their child were expressed by these families.

Having chosen the school, several families expressed

concern about their child gaining enrolment at that school.

This was particularly the case for children with special

education needs seeking a placement at a special school.

Several of the families who had a child with special needs

were not offered enrolment at the school of their choice.

Decisions for these families included seeking enrolment at

the local mainstream school, applying for enrolment at a

different special school, and moving to a different area in

order to access another school. Each of these options

involved complex planning and negotiation. Parents were

very appreciative of the support offered by staff from early

childhood services, early intervention programs and schools,

but still found this to be a lengthy, complicated and often

demoralising process.

A young boy had been attending a preschool program

for children with autism. His mother was keen for him to

attend a local special school which had an autism class,

but the son was not offered a place at this school. His

mother had sought advice from the Early Intervention

teacher and staff in the relevant school district offices

about other possible placements. As a result, she and

her family were in the process of moving to a suburb in

which another special school was located. While the

mother appreciated the support she received, she was

frustrated that there were not sufficient local places for

students in need of special school enrolment and that

she only seemed to be able to access schools if the Early

Intervention teacher or district office staff made an

appointment for her. She commented the school won’t

talk to just parents.

Transition programs

The presence, or absence, of transition to school programs

influenced some parents as they made decisions about

which school their children would attend – or even if they

would be attending school that year. Transition programs

were an important point of contact for families. Through

these programs, parents accessed teachers and other

professionals in schools, including counsellors. This provided

parents with a legitimate reason to visit the school, ask

questions and seek information. This was important for a

number of parents who felt uncomfortable simply ‘calling in’

to a school.

Decision points, issues and concerns for families with complex support needs as their children start school

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

19

Transition programs were particularly important for children

with special needs. These often involved activities over an

extended period of time and involved a range of people.

Where families knew which school their child would attend,

transition programs provided opportunities to build

relationships and to become familiar with the school.

Where families were not certain of the school their child

would attend, particularly special schools, the period of

transition was more complicated, with children and parents

unsure of which transition program to attend, or which

schools to approach.

Teachers described transition programs as important

opportunities for informal communication with families as

well as getting to know the children and their capabilities.

For some teachers, transition programs were times for

assessing the capabilities of children; for others the role of

these programs was primarily familiarisation – as children got

to know about school and those at the school got to know

children and families. Both teachers and parents described

the most effective programs as times to get to know each

other and develop the partnership that would best support

the children starting school. The least effective programs left

children and parents feeling daunted by the prospect of

starting school and concerned about the judgements they

felt had been made by those running the programs.

Effective transition programs provided an impetus for

families and schools to make connections and build

relationships, focused on the child starting school. Parents

were often seeking information, willing to visit schools and

talk with teachers – confirming transition times as

particularly appropriate for interventions. When school staff

made efforts to reach out to families and engage with them

through transition programs, a positive tone was set and

ongoing interactions were promoted.

School readiness

Parents’ perceptions of children’s readiness influenced

decisions about when children started school as well as the

school they attended. The major factors influencing decisions

about readiness were age and social development.

Underpinning considerations of readiness was awareness of

the importance of a positive start to school and desire for

children to feel comfortable at school.

One mother noted that she had made the decision to

keep her son at preschool rather than send him to school

as soon as he was eligible.

I was thinking that he probably wouldn’t be ready.

Because socially I thought he would really struggle

because other kids, he just didn’t think about them

at all. Kids can be ready academically but if they

struggle socially then everything else kind of suffers.

If you’re not happy at school because you can’t make

friends at school or whatever then that can suffer.

Some parents were certain that their children were ready for

school. As evidence, they referred to children’s confidence,

skills and abilities, particularly as demonstrated at preschool.

Other parents were unsure about readiness and sought

advice from a range of people. Where advice was

contradictory, they experienced confusion and sometimes

distress about making the best decision about starting school.

In one of the participating families, a daughter was

eligible to start school in 2008. Her mother was unsure

about the daughter’s readiness for school and sought

advice from the preschool and first year of school

teacher. Their advice was contradictory, with the

preschool teacher suggesting that the child had some

social problems, and the school teacher indicating that

she was ready for school. The mother was not certain

about the nature of the social problems identified by

the preschool teacher. The mother’s case worker

recommended that the daughter start school, as a

strategy to alleviate some of the mother’s ongoing

depression. However, the mother was concerned that

sending her daughter to school was something she

was doing for herself, rather than for her daughter.

She was concerned that her daughter would be placed

in a difficult position coping with school – something

she had experienced with her older children.

Children’s expectations of readiness of school referred

mainly to age. Several children echoed the sentiment, I’ll be

a big kid when I turn 5, and others expected to attend school

as soon as they turned 5. Teacher perceptions of children’s

readiness highlighted both age and social/emotional maturity,

which was itself often associated with age.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

20

Parent/family experiences of school

For some participants, concern about school related to their

own or other family members’ experiences of school.

Parental experiences varied considerably, with some

recalling positive experiences, others recalling negative

experiences and still others being non-committal in

comments such as school was OK. These experiences had

an impact on how parents felt about children starting school

and in how they approached the transition to school.

Families wanted their children to be happy and safe at

school. Several parents reported that they – or other family

members, including older children – had not been happy and

safe at school. Parents reported concerns about bullying,

with some concerned that their child would be bullied and

others concerned that their child would be a bully. Having

older siblings attend the same school sometimes provided a

buffer for children as they started school; at other times the

reputation of the older child was considered detrimental to

the child starting school.

Several parents indicated that their children would attend the

same school they had attended as children. For some, this

was a positive chance to re-connect with the school and any

teachers they knew who were still there. For others, the fear

that their children would be judged through their parents was

cause for great concern.

One mother had lived in the same rural town all her life.

Her son was about to start kindergarten at the same

school she had attended as a child. Her own school

experiences were not remembered fondly, and she was

concerned that some of the teachers who had taught her,

and who were still at the school, would be thinking of

her as they made judgements about her son. In their

conversations, some teachers at the school noted that

they based their interactions with children starting school

on knowledge of the families, including having taught

some of the parents.

Changes for parents

Just as children experience a change in identity as they

become a school student, so too do parents experience a

shift in identity as they become parents of a school student.

All parents wanted the best for their children, yet several

described feelings of guilt as they noted that they were not

able to provide the support and resources they believed would

help their child at school. Homework was raised as an issue by

several parents, accompanied by comments that while they

may be able to help children in Kindergarten, they did not

expect to be able to offer help much beyond this. Homework

also caused tension in several families, where parents felt

pressure to make sure children completed homework.

Commenting on the homework of her son, who was

in Kindergarten, one mother noted

I don’t function well with homework...I think he’s got

enough homework, and then the next thing I know, he’s

got a project as well...I hate homework...it’s not

homework for them...it’s a project for Mum...I’ve had

enough homework! You’ve got to read the words every

day and the homework...I’ve got to sit next to him while

he does his homework, I can’t go wandering around

because I’m always wanted...I get upset if he doesn’t

take pride in his work, because he doesn’t take pride in

his work, he’s in a hurry. And then he’s got his reader.

He didn’t need the project!

Several parents also indicated that their own wellbeing

impacted on their children and their starting school

experiences. Parents who reported feeling tired, exhausted,

confused or unwell indicated that it was hard to put a lot of

energy into supporting their children.

One mother’s depression seemed to make it difficult to

both seek a range of information about whether or not

her daughter should start school and then to make the

decision. As she struggled with this, she resisted telling

her friend or her case worker because she did not think

they would approve of her even considering not sending

the daughter to school: [I’ll] try not to get stressed out.

That’s why I won’t tell my friend what I’m planning to do.

Relationships between children and parents changed across

the transition to school. Some parents reported difficulties

‘letting go’ as children started school and spent large

amounts of time with other adults outside the home; others

reported that their relationships with children had become

more positive because there were other adults playing

important roles in the lives of children.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

21

Associated with this was an implicit assumption about what

‘good’ parents of school students did and the support they

provided. Throughout discussions, parents referred to what

the school expected of them – for example in getting

children to school, ensuring that they completed homework

and wearing the school uniform. Some parents expected that

they would not be able to meet the expectations of the

school and would soon be labelled as ‘non-cooperative

parents’. For example, one mother ’s experiences with her

older children convinced her that her younger son would be a

truant, and that she would be unable to change this. In her

mind, she had already been labelled a ‘bad parent’ and saw

no way for this to change.

Parental knowledge

Some parents indicated that their knowledge of their children

was sometimes recognised and valued by schools, while

others felt that their knowledge was discounted. Where

children had special education needs, the knowledge base of

the parents about the child and the nature of the disability

often exceeded that of teachers. A specific concern for

families of a child with special education needs was how

their knowledge could be used to access the best support

for their child.

There was considerable anxiety for parents about

assessments undertaken to determine children’s access to

additional support and resources. This was the case for many

parents, but particularly those whose children had special

education needs. While working to build up children’s

capabilities, parents were aware that support was most likely

to be directed to those children who performed poorly on

such assessments.

A young boy had been diagnosed with Down syndrome.

He was to attend the local mainstream school, hopefully

with support from a teacher aide. To be eligible for this

support, he needed to be assessed as having at least a

moderate intellectual disability. As a result of assessment, he

was judged to have a severe intellectual disability. While his

mother was pleased that this made him eligible for additional

support, she was upset about the process and the label:

...for his whole life we’ve been trying to build him up and

working on his strengths and everything and then all of a

sudden it’s the exact opposite, you want him to perform badly

and you don’t want him to do this and you have to tell them

about all of his weaknesses and so it’s the exact opposite to

what we’ve been doing for the last five years with him.

Concerns about children’s behaviour

Some parents were particularly concerned about the impact

their children’s behaviour would have on their transition

to school.

After a marriage break-up, a mother and her children

had moved to a large regional city to access emergency

housing. Her sixth and second youngest child was

diagnosed with Oppositional Defiance Disorder a few

months before starting school. The mother was actively

seeking community support, but was unable to find any

existing support group. She talked of starting one herself.

The son’s challenging behaviour meant that she, and the

other children, engaged in limited activities outside the

home. The son started school on a ‘partial enrolment’,

attending for a few hours only each day. A condition of

the enrolment was that the mother was to be available,

on-call, at any time the school rang to collect her son if an

incident occurred. There was no additional support for the

boy, or the Kindergarten teacher, at the school. The

mother commented, I’m happy to do it [collect him after

2 hours]. I want to have it that way because it’s really

important that he gets off to a good start, or as best we

can. She was disappointed that support had not been

forthcoming from the school, but was reluctant to

demonstrate her own need for support because of her

fear: there’s always this thing in the back of your mind

that if you’re a parent melting down, is someone going

to come along and take your children away? Like I don’t

want to say anything because they’ll think I’m a terrible

mother and take them away from me...

This was not the only child for whom behaviour was a major

concern. Some parents described children’s challenging

behaviour in terms of a specific disability; for others, such

behaviour existed outside a specific disability or diagnosis.

Parents of children with challenging behaviour felt that they

were being judged as inadequate parents by professionals.

Some parents of children with disabilities felt that their

children would access more assistance if their child also

displayed challenging behaviour.

School adjustment data, as rated by teachers using the SDQ

(Goodman, 1997), was available for 18 children (17 boys, 1

girl). These indicate that 40% of the children were

categorised within the borderline or clinical range on

incidence of hyperactivity (for example, children not being

able to sit still, not concentrating, easily distracted) and

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

22

conduct problems (for example, expressions of anger,

destruction of property, non-compliance) for the boys in this

group. This is higher than expected with Australian norms

suggesting 10% of children score within each of the

borderline and clinical ranges (Hayes, 2007).

These data need to be interpreted with caution, because of

the small sample, teachers’ background knowledge (they

were informed of the purpose of the study and knew they

were commenting on children from families with complex

support needs) and the gender imbalance. Even with these

cautions, it seems clear that parental concern about

children’s behaviour impacting on their transition to school

was confirmed by teachers.

Children, too, commented on behaviour. Several of the boys

identified as having challenging behaviour were aware of this

and the implications of this. For example, one boy indicated

that he had spent an extra year at preschool because I was

mucking up.

Engagement with school

The nature and frequency of family engagement with school

depended on several factors, including the location of the

school; how comfortable parents felt at school; their own

(and other family) experiences of school; the purpose of

engagement; and expectations about their role at school.

Some parents became active participants – for example by

joining the parent association or helping in the classroom;

others dropped off and collected children, but rarely moved

beyond the school gate. Several parents were unsure of how

to approach teachers, and waited for teachers to approach

them. Some parents were advised that their presence at

school would be disruptive for the children, or that there was

no provision for younger siblings to accompany parents on

visits to school.

In other cases, parents found visits to the school unsettling.

When one mother visited the school, she was struck by the

ways in which teachers talked to some of the children, and

became convinced that her daughter would be always in

trouble. Her advice was you must never enter the

Kindergarten kid’s class if you’ve got one that might be

going the year after because it was upsetting to imagine

children being the target of the teacher’s negative attention.

Other parents were more positive in their discussions about

engaging with teachers and schools, noting that teachers

often provided high levels of help and support for children

and sometimes, for parents.

One young lad attended a special class within a

mainstream school. When his mother’s now adult

children had been at school, she had been involved in the

P&C and school council. She undertook the same roles

with her son’s school, explaining …I always enjoy it.

Others say ‘Oh why do you do so much at the school

for?’ and I said ‘Because I get something out of it as

well’. I’ve met so many really nice people by doing it and

also you’ve got an insight into how things run in the

school, which I found interesting…

Financial pressures

Some families were pleased that the cost of preschool had

been removed when their children started school. However,

few considered education to be free, and several reported

seeking additional financial assistance to cover the costs of

school uniforms and equipment. Part of the impetus for

ensuring that children started school with the ‘correct’

uniform and equipment came from the parents’ desire for

children to fit into the school context and not to stand out or

appear different.

When her son started school, the mother had to cover

the costs of having two children at school. With the help

of a local NGO, she and her husband had accessed the

services of a financial planner. Having identified a

disposable income of $7/fortnight, the mother was

anxious about meeting the costs of school shirts ($17

each) and jumpers ($40) as well as shoes, schoolbags,

lunch and the extra costs involved in excursions. She

started saving in July for the costs of uniforms in

January. When the school changed the uniform, she was

upset that costs were increasing. Directing money to

school expenses also meant that as a family, there was

limited access to other activities. For example, the boys

were unable to play soccer or other sports, because of

the cost involved. To increase their income, the partner

worked longer hours, and as a consequence, spent less

time at home. The mother believed that this contributed

to her son’s challenging behaviour.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

23

Across several families, the costs associated with school and

of accessing specialist services to promote a positive start to

school (such as parenting programs, private therapy when no

publicly funded service was available and even preschool),

added considerable stress to families.

Overview of the decision points, issues andconcerns for families with complex supportneeds as their children start school

All families make decisions and encounter issues and concerns

as their children start school. What often differs for families

with complex support needs is the nature of the choices

available for them, the information or resources they access to

inform their decisions and the confidence with which they

approach decisions. These differences are also related to the

nature of the complex support needs experienced by families

and the communities in which they live.

Decisions about which school children would attend and

when they started school were influenced by perceptions of

readiness and the school experiences of family members.

Some parents described how their own well-being impacted

on children’s experiences as well as their changing roles as

parents. Concerns about the impact of children’s behaviour

on the transition process and outcomes, the nature of family

engagement with school and the financial pressures

associated with school enrolment were evident.

There was considerable variation in how families approached

the decisions related to children starting school. Regardless

of the process of selecting a school, all families wanted their

children to have the best education possible. Many families

sought advice about their children starting school – often

focused on children’s perceived readiness. In most cases,

this advice was useful and important; in other cases it was

contradictory and confusing. Some of the contradictory

advice seemed to be symptomatic of the lack of

communication across the prior-to-school and school sectors,

where professionals in different areas were working on

different expectations and perceptions. The openness to

advice at this time affirms times of transition as an

appropriate time for intervention.

Families with a child with special needs were surprised to

find that placement in a special school was not automatic

and that additional funded support for the child in school was

also not guaranteed. Navigating different systems and

requirements, such as visiting schools and having children

assessed, resulted in considerable stress for some families.

The experiences of parents and other family members

influenced children’s transition to school – both how they

were introduced to the school and how families managed

the experience. Parents drew on previous parenting

experiences with older children at this time of transition. The

issue of reputation was consistent for a number of families.

There was concern that the child starting school would be

labelled by teachers, often through reputation or first

impressions. This was particularly the case when children

demonstrated challenging behaviours, or where family

history at a particular school was not positive.

Families were aware of changing roles and responsibilities as

children started school. Several parents were eager to be

involved in schools, but unsure how to promote this. As a

result, they waited to be asked and when invitations were

not forthcoming, assumed that their involvement was not

needed. There was awareness of changes in the parent-child

relationship as children started school.

For many families, the transition to school was a time of

additional stress: financial, social and emotional. Despite

this, overwhelmingly, parents wanted their children to have

positive experiences of school – often more positive than

their own experiences had been.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

24

This section addresses the research question: What supports

are required, available and accessible for families with

complex support needs and their children during the year

before school and the first year of school?

All of the families involved in the study had sought support in

some way. There was a combination of support from formal

and informal networks; each was important for families.

Transition was a time when formal support was sought and

when existing support was reassessed, changed and

sometimes withdrawn.

Informal support

A number of families drew upon informal support from

relatives and friends.

At the time that the young boy was to undergo tests

related to Down syndrome, his father was away. The

mother’s parents offered to accompany her and the boy.

The mother was very appreciative of their support,

commenting I was a mess that day, I was in tears all day

and I was in tears afterwards and when I got the results

I was in tears. It was really awful, I was quite shocked,

because I sort of feel that I’m a strong person... for

someone who doesn’t have any support or something like

that it must be awful to have to go through it by yourself...

Mostly, informal support was regarded as helpful, though

some was perceived as judgemental and negative. In some

cases local, informal support was linked to reputation; how

family, friends and community regarded parents or children

impacted on the informal support available. In other

situations, those seeking support also provided support for

other relatives and friends who had complex support needs.

Several families resided in locations that were removed from

their informal networks. Families who had recently moved to

an area often described a lack of social support and the

challenges that imposed. For example, one mother became

involved in the study after she approached a local agency

seeking help. She described herself as trying to get some

support networks, because I’m here on my own, no family,

friends; just me and my lot of children. For some families,

the combination of social isolation and complex support

needs was overwhelming.

For families with a child or children with special needs,

informal support was valued at critical times, such as the

point of diagnosis or assessment, and during periods of

transition, including the transition to school. Some of the

most valued support was derived from people who had

already experienced those critical times.

One young boy was diagnosed with a developmental

delay before he started school. His mother was adamant

that the best support came from other parents who had

experienced the challenges of seeking support for their

children. She commented professionals are not going to

necessarily come out and tell you all the information you

want unless you push to find that out or you speak to

other Mums who are in the same spot ... it’s only after

you’ve been through it that you start getting a bit more

clued up.

Formal support

Families involved in this study were recruited through the

partner agencies – Mission Australia and Community

Services, NSW Department of Human Services. In some

instances, families accessed additional formal support

outside these agencies, depending on the nature of the

complex support needs within the family. Across all families,

formal support was highly valued. As well as access to

specific support programs (such as Brighter Futures) and

services (such as speech therapy, occupational therapy,

behavioural support and parenting support), families valued

the relationships they developed with staff and the support

they received through them.

The forms of support provided by agencies varied. In some

instances immediate, practical support was provided to

families. Examples include purchasing school uniforms or

paying for rubbish removal to improve the living environment

of families. At other times, support enabled families to

access services that had long waiting lists, such as speech,

occupational or physiotherapy. The agencies in some

locations operated supported playgroups or early childhood

services that were well patronised by families. Agencies also

provided access to programs focused on parenting, financial

planning and behavioural support.

Families valued professional support that addressed

immediate needs as well as helping parents develop skills

for the future. They particularly valued the support of

professionals in the role of mediators. Many families either

did not know of ways to manage their interactions with

institutions or organisations, or did not feel in a position to

influence these interactions.

Supports for families and children before school and in the first year of school

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

25

There were many instances of families being asked to

complete forms that they did not understand, attend

meetings where they were not aware of the agenda or their

role, or make decisions with what they felt was limited

information or limited awareness of the consequences of

these decisions. Where professionals were able to interpret

the forms, explain processes and decision points or

accompany them to meetings, parents were more

comfortable and confident. Very effective services worked to

develop these skills among parents and some then sought to

engage experienced parents to assist in these roles, in both

formal and informal capacities. A mother commented about

one service:

If I hadn’t have been going there then I wouldn’t have

found out so much about what was going on. And then

talking to other parents that also have accessed that same

school. The way [service] works at the end of the year…

they get past parents back to talk about how their kids

went. And so then you can talk to those parents and

say ‘Well, that sounds really interesting, tell me more

information’. Maybe to chase up that sort of avenue if

you think that might suit your child.

Effective support – as defined by both parents and by staff –

focused both on meeting the identified challenges within

families and on building skills and capacity within those

families. This necessitated recognition not only of the needs

of families, but also of their strengths. Families talked of the

importance of having someone to talk to about the good

things, as well as responding to the challenges in their lives.

Professional staff often highlighted the extent of the

challenges faced by families, as well as the resolve and

resilience they displayed in responding to these. One teacher

recognised the strengths of a mother who herself

experienced mental health issues, yet who managed every

day to bring her disabled son to school and support him in

many ways. The teacher commented How hard would it be

to put yourself second every day?

Accessing support

While families noted the availability of a range of support,

they also noted some challenges in accessing this support.

Often seeking support was a challenge. Sometimes, there

was a sense that accessing support meant increased

surveillance and judgement from those outside the family

about family and parenting issues. A mother’s comment that

there’s always this thing in the back of your mind that if

you’re a parent melting down, is someone going to come

along and take your children away... reflected the

perceptions of several other parents.

In other cases, limited forms of support were available. One

consequence seemed to be that families were directed to

that support, whether or not it was relevant to their support

needs and context.

One family had recently moved to a suburban area in

order to access affordable housing. The mother had

experienced post-natal depression after the birth of her

son, and this was exacerbated when her second child

was born. She appeared to be an anxious parent, worried

that her son would have difficulty starting school, even

though there was little evidence to indicate that this

would be the case. Despite her anxiety, she was very

passive in seeking information about the transition to

school. She had a positive relationship with her case

worker. Over the course of the study, the mother

attended several parenting courses. She became

convinced that her son had challenging behaviour

and/or physical problems and that she was not

competent to manage these. There was no opportunity

for her to access programs that helped her manage

post-natal depression.

A range of information about school and transition to school

existed in communities. In some, there was a great deal of

general information, available from multiple sources. In

others, very little information was available unless parents

visited the local school. In most communities, information

about specific schools (such as uniforms, starting and

finishing times, transition programs) was available from

schools only. Some parents accessed information from

school websites, or more general websites. Even when

written information was available, the majority of parents

expressed a preference for talking with someone about

transition to school, rather than reading about it. Reasons

given included being able to ask about issues specific to

their child and feeling more confident when talking to a

person, rather than reading a sheet.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

26

In all contexts, a shortage of allied health professionals and

programs was noted and, even where they were available,

there was often a long waiting list for services. Sometimes,

programs were directed at specific family members, such as

young children, yet the needs of other family members were

not addressed. Many programs had a limited availability, so

that families could access these for a specific period, after

which they were no longer eligible for support. The

withdrawal of support at transition points was a common

experience for the families involved in this study. As well as

generating considerable stress for families, the discontinuity

in support had the potential to jeopardise any gains that had

been made through the provision of support.

Staff from one agency location described a program

that provided a limited amount of brokerage funding for

families over a financial year. They had accessed this

funding for a family living in a rural area. Of the five children

in this family, one had been diagnosed with autism and

various difficulties had been identified for several other

children. Family income was low and the cost of private

support services made access to these prohibitive.

Using the brokerage funding, the agency had accessed

a local program involving individual support for the child

with autism. He had made significant progress with this

program. However, as the brokerage was limited, the

program ceased as soon as the funding limit had been

met. Additionally, the funding was provided for the whole

family, meaning that if any of the other children needed

support, it was to be drawn from the same limit. The

agency staff were expecting the funding limit to be

reached well within the year, with the consequence that

support would be withdrawn: [They can’t] just jump in

their car and drive and pay for it …that’s just out of their

reach, then it’s the child that suffers. And ultimately,

the community.

Discontinuity in support was experienced most often at the

time of transition to school. This was the time that targeted

prior-to-school programs ceased and when families had to

navigate the unfamiliar landscape of school education and

school education support. Many families were confused that

the nature of support varied so considerably between prior-

to-school and school settings, and that different assessment

criteria were used in the allocation of support.

A boy was about to start school. He had cerebral palsy

which had left him with one leg shorter than the other.

He had experienced a range of medical issues that

resulted in poor motor control. His regular and often

painful hospitalisation was thought to have contributed

to emotional difficulties. Prior to school, he attended an

Early Intervention service, preschool, physio, speech and

occupational therapy. The assessment he completed

prior to starting school indicated that his disabilities were

not sufficient to qualify for additional classroom support,

despite strong recommendations from his paediatrician

and allied health providers. His mother commented

I think they need a program where they do Early

Intervention and then for the first twelve months of

schooling they need to continue that… [otherwise]

you’re trying to start your child at school, you’re trying to

start a new service, if you can get into the new services

because there is no services… and like for us,

everything just stops.

Discontinuity in services was also noted when children did

not have special education needs. Parents particularly

commented on the different philosophies and approaches

across services as children made the transition to school. In

some cases, the differing approaches were explained in

terms of the number of staff and the focus of the setting –

for example, the greater number of children in a school class

and the presence of one teacher were compared to the

group size and staffing ratio in prior-to-school settings, with

parents noting the challenges this imposed on teachers. At

other times, the underlying philosophy of the settings

differed. For example, parents noted that one particular Early

Intervention service focused a great deal on supporting them

and developing their skills; the same parents commented

that the school focus on the child only meant that they did

not get ongoing formal support from the school.

Regardless of the nature of the complex support needs for

families, and regardless of the location, families noted

substantial change when services ceased as children moved

from prior-to-school into school settings. Some support ceased

entirely; in other cases, families described being shifted to a

new agency and then often to a waiting list depending on

what support was available and how it was delivered within

particular communities. Many parents lamented the loss of

relationships of trust they had built up with agency or service

staff. These same staff commented in similar terms about

having to let go of their connections with families.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

27

Workforce

Workforce issues are linked to access and availability of

support. Families and agency staff all identified a lack of

qualified personnel as a factor that prevented ongoing access

to support. As well as a shortage of allied health, social

welfare and parenting professionals in all areas, but

particularly in rural areas, it was noted that the often high and

challenging case loads of those who did fulfil these roles led

to staff burnout and high turnover. Where staff had been in

place within communities for some time, they not only built

relationships with families but also with professional

networks. These networks provided some of the professional

and collegial support needed to nurture staff, as well as

facilitating cross-sector and cross-service collaboration. High

staff turnover often precluded staff engagement in these

networks and impeded the development of ongoing support

for staff. In many, but not all, locations, there was a

noticeable lack of participation in community networks by

teachers, particularly those based in schools.

Family support workers from one rural service

commented... there’s a lot of work goes into case

management and sourcing out what services are

required and what availability there is with those services

and how much or how far your funding will go to achieve

that for the client. It’s an individual plan for every single

client family that you’re working with... going out and

trying to sort those services that families don’t ordinarily

get or wouldn’t have ordinarily gotten, and trying to pull

services in to help bundle together for the family to make

the whole process a lot easier, it’s a hard thing to do and

you can only do your best with what you’ve got to work

with... if you could just have a stable service in the

community, that people could access every time, that

person might even get to know the community... mobile

services are just so inadequate... that’s where you are on

overload all the time. You’re providing a lot of service…

A little bit of service to a lot of people where it should be

a lot of service to a few people... we’d like to work at a

better pace. We’d like to feel that we’re doing a really top

job but you don’t because you just get overworked.

Overview of supports for families and theirchildren during the year before school and thefirst year of school

Families were successful when they had strong and

complementary supports. Families valued and drew upon a

range of supports, both formal and informal. Many families

demonstrated a range of strengths and capabilities as they

accessed these supports, or tried to identify appropriate

supports for them and their children. There were strong

indications that good supports facilitated family strengths

and conversely, no or conditional support made life harder for

families. In several instances, the support provided through

agencies was critical to family functioning.

Many forms of support were available for some, but not all,

families. Accessing this support often depended on location

and financial resources. In some communities access to

professional support was limited and the cost of private

support was prohibitive. At times parents were

uncomfortable accessing support, noting the increased

surveillance that accompanied this.

Appropriate support varied according to families, children and

context. No single form of support was identified as

appropriate for all families in all contexts. Indeed the

opposite was the case, with the individual circumstances of

families and children determining the most appropriate

support. To remain effective, the nature of that support often

needed to change over time, as families and children

changed. There was limited evidence of families accessing

coordinated support, unless parents themselves, Early

Intervention teachers or agency staff had actively set out to

coordinate services.

Coordination of support was often difficult because of the

different philosophies and approaches in different services.

For example, some services focused on the individual child

and supporting their specific needs; other services focused

on the family as a whole and sought to address multiple,

interacting issues. In other instances, families experienced

multiple challenges and required diverse support. Where

support was contradictory or uncoordinated, parents

reported feelings of confusion and disempowerment.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

28

For several families, the sources of complexity in their lives

did not start with the children. Yet it often seemed that the

services they were able to access were directed at the child,

rather than the family. While there did not seem to be one

‘right’ focus, the differing foci made continuity and

consistency difficult.

Of particular importance for families involved in this study

was that at the same time as children were making the

transition to school, families and children were making a

transition to different support services – including their

different personnel, approaches and philosophies – or the

transition to no support services.

The transition across support services was rarely smooth or

continuous. Two examples of this discontinuity were

highlighted in this study. The first occurred when support

programs which were limited in terms of time or financial

support, came to an end. Families who had made progress

on the basis of this support often felt that they had been

abandoned. The second occurred when children started

school and much of the support that had been available in

the prior-to-school years either ceased or changed

dramatically. This was particularly the case for children with

special education needs. Both families and support staff

indicated that some families needed ongoing support and

that programs of sustained support were more likely than

short-term programs to effect long-term change and positive

outcomes. When children and families lost support, negative

consequences were seen in terms of children’s engagement

at school, progression, confidence and achievement.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

29

This section addresses the research question: What facilitates

the transition to school for children of families with complex

support needs?

Several factors are pivotal to facilitating the transition to

school for children of families with complex support needs. A

well-qualified workforce that can deliver professional support

and resources is critical to facilitating the transition to school

of children from families with complex support needs. Most

will be achieved when this workforce is diverse (cross-

disciplinary), yet coordinated. When this workforce is

appropriately funded, resourced and supported, there is the

potential to create enabling environments that support a

positive transition to school for all involved. A number of

enabling practices and processes contribute to enabling

environments. When these are combined with enabling

policies, a range of positive outcomes for children, families,

educators and other professionals, as well as the

community, are identified.

Enabling practices

Practices that support the positive transition to school of

children from families with complex support needs varied

according to the family and their context. However, some

common elements were identified throughout this study.

These emphasised:

• providing access to information about school;

• assisting families to make positive connections

with schools;

• promoting the development of family skills and abilities;

• acknowledging transition as a time when families seek,

and are responsive to, input; and

• recognising challenges that reside outside the family, for

example in the neighbourhood or community.

Key practices identified by families and staff throughout this

project were:

• professionals acting as mediators for families in

interactions with schools and other services;

• providing information for families about schools, processes

for enrolment, services and support available within

schools; and

• transition to school programs.

The role of mediator, someone to act as a go-between for introductions to new or different services, to explainforms and processes, has already been identified as a keysupport. In several services this role was undertaken in

ways that both supported families and helped them developthe skills and confidence to take on the role themselves infuture interactions.

If I have any concerns with my daughter I always go to[case worker] and she will ring up … and she has a talk tothem, because I said to her ‘They’re not listening to me’… So she gets up on their back and then they’ll tell hersomething and I said ‘Well they didn’t say nothing to me.

Providing information about schools, school expectations,services and options, as well as helping families makejudgements about how schools responded to them and theircomplex support needs, remained an important practiceacross many services. The ways in which information wasprovided varied, but typically included both written and verbalinformation. Transition programs, in their many guises,tended to be operated by prior-to-school settings andschools; these were most effective when services workedcollaboratively. Effective transition programs developedapproaches to respond to their communities and to includefamilies as well as other stakeholders.

In one school, the transition program consisted of aseries of small group visits to the school by children and parents. Groups of about six parents and childrenvisited the kindergarten classroom. A support teacherjoined the group and children and parents got a sense of what happened at school. To round off the visit, theKindergarten teacher had morning tea with the group of parents. The approach was promoted as an informalchat, a chance to meet and talk about things over a cup of coffee. The teacher noted I think it helps make it a bit easier for the parents to approach you whenthey come to school.

Enabling processes

Processes that support the positive transition to school ofchildren from families with complex support needs promote:

• continuity of support across the transition to school;

• alignment of funded programs across the transition,including alignment of funding and access to support;

• cross-sector collaboration;

• support that changes as family needs change;

• service flexibility and responsiveness to each family’schanging situations;

• adaptation of services and support to local contexts; and

• professional development opportunities for staff.

Enabling practices and processes that facilitate the transition to school for childrenof families with complex support needs

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

30

Several instances of multidisciplinary collaboration were

noted throughout this study. In many contexts, staff with

different professional backgrounds worked closely with each

other and with families to provide access to a range of

services and supports. There were also some instances of

transdisciplinary teams, where professionals from different

disciplines not only worked together, but also shared roles

and work across disciplinary boundaries to maximise

cooperation among the team members and integrated

support for the family. Such teams tended to be located

within Early Intervention Services. However, there were also

many instances where families either struggled to access

support or if they could access support, found that it was

offered as a discrete service that was not integrated with

any other support.

There were also several instances where cross-sectoral

collaboration was limited. For example, education

professionals were often not aware of the support children or

families were receiving from health professionals, or family

support staff. Sometimes this was because families were

unwilling to share information that would make this possible;

in other cases it was due to lack of time or commitment to

such collaboration.

For the families involved in this study, support programs

ceased at around the same time that children started school.

While some programs were not necessarily designed to

operate this way, the implementation had this effect. For

example, the Brighter Futures program offered support for

families for a period of two years. The families in this project

who had been involved with Brighter Futures started this

involvement when their children were about age three.

As a consequence, the two year limit was reached when

children were about age 5 – around the same time as they

started school.

For other families, specialist support accessed through early

childhood services was funded by Community Services,

NSW Department of Human Services. This support ceased

when children started school, and any new specialist support

was accessed through the Department of Education and

Training. Different models of funding, different criteria for

funded support and the different nature of available support

often meant that families experienced a major gap in support

across the transition to school. For some families, this gap

widened over time, as support was unavailable in the

changed context of school.

Commenting on the change in support, one serviceprovider noted:

When they lose support, families feel lost and alone.They’ve had this support and now because a child hasreached a certain age or funding has run out or… They just think “Where do we go from here? What do we do?” It just becomes overwhelming to them and they just really don’t know what to do.

And it’s frustrating for us, as service providers who have been able to get them that far, and then we have to watch all that good work go down the drain again and it’s really a double whammy because it’s a smack for the families and it’s a smack for our services too. I don’t know how else you’d explain that really, but we have to watch it. Build up then fall down.

Providing appropriate support for families with complexsupport needs presents many challenges, not the leastbecause each family and their context is unique. This meansthat there is no generic, one-size-fits-all form of support thatcan be delivered across all contexts and for all families. Inaddition, as families change, appropriate support needs to beresponsive to these changes. For example, appropriate supportfor families with children as they start school may well be quitedifferent from support for families with infants or toddlers.Effective support recognises the changing needs of familiesand is responsive to changing family situations. Further,effective support must take account of the contexts in which itoccurs. Failure to account for and respond to local contexts canmean that support is not accessed or not effective.

Supporting and maintaining a well-qualified workforceinvolves recognition of the value of staff through appropriatesalaries and conditions, and opportunities for professionaldevelopment and cross-sector collaboration. One step in thisprocess is to identify the nature of the workforce, recognisingthe diversity of professional staff and roles that supportfamilies and children across the transition to school. A furtherstep is to promote collaboration among family support staff,social workers, counsellors, allied health professions andeducators from the prior-to-school and school sectors, as wellas any other professionals working with families andcommunities. Strategies to achieve this could includecommon professional development opportunities, integratedcourses at tertiary level, and/or opportunities for cross-disciplinary professional experience. Collaboration has thepotential to promote the consistency in services and supportthat families seek and to create the working conditions thatsupport professionals in the continuation of their roles.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

31

This section addresses the research question: What

implications for policy and practice can be drawn from

this research?

A number of enabling practices and processes contribute to

enabling environments. When these are combined with

enabling policies, a range of positive outcomes for children,

families, educators and other professionals, as well as the

community, are identified. In this context enabling policy:

• recognises transition to school as a time of additional

stress for families;

• provides access to appropriate transition programs for

children and families;

• facilitates the development and implementation of

programs that are built on family strengths and responsive

to their needs;

• supports programs that promote family-school

partnerships;

• retains provisions for support across the transition

to school;

• promotes availability of a range of complementary,

yet coordinated, supports for families over the

transition period;

• facilitates the implementation of flexible and

responsive support programs, adapted for family and

community contexts;

• recognises the key roles of a professional, multi-disciplinary

workforce in supporting families at times of transition; and

• promotes transdisciplinary, multi-agency collaboration in

family centred practice.

Conditions necessary to generate contexts supportive of a

positive transition to school for children from families with

complex support needs are outlined in Figure 2. The inputs –

a well-qualified workforce, professional supports and

resources, and program funding – when combined with

enabling practices, processes and policies have the potential

to produce a range of positive outcomes for children,

families, educators and other professionals, and

communities, as children make the transition to school.

Policy directions for promoting the transition to school for children of families withcomplex support needs

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

Workforce that is:

• appropriately funded and resourced

• well qualified

• consistent

• coordinated

• valued

• supported

Professional support/resourcesthat are:

• available

• accessible

• affordable

• relevant

• flexible

• drawn from a strong evidence base

• coordinated across services

• continuous over the transition

• built upon familystrengths

• aimed at building family capacity

• family centred

Program funding that is:

• sufficient

• consistent across sectors

• flexible

Input Outcomes

Children

• Improved transition to school

• Positive feelings about school

• Access targeted support/programs at school that enhance learning and development

• Improved relationships with educators

Families

• Regard school as a positive environment for their children

• Feel respected and valued by the school

• Recognise their role in promoting positive educational outcomes

• Feel supported

• Willing to engage with school

• Better understanding of what happens at school

• Improved relationships with school staff

Educators and other professionals

• Improved collaboration across sectors and disciplines

• Respect for families

• Awareness of family strengths

• Better understanding of family contexts and appropriate support

• Professionals supportedin their roles

Community

• Continuity of support for families

• School is a valued environment

• Collaborative support forthe transition to school

Enabling Environments

Enabling practices:

• provide access to information about school

• assist in making positive connections with schools

• promote the development of family skillsand abilities

• recognise transition as a time whenfamilies seek, and are responsive to, input

• recognise challenges that reside outsidethe family, for example in theneighbourhood or community

Enabling processes promote:

• continuity of support across the transition to school

• alignment of funded programs across thetransition, including alignment of funding andaccess to support

• support that changes as family needs changes.

• service flexibility and responsiveness to eachfamily’s changing situations

• adaptation of services and support to local contexts

• professional development opportunities for staff

• cross-sector collaboration

Enabling policy:

• recognises transition to school as a time of additional stress for families

• facilitates the development and implementation of programs that are built on family strengths and responsive to their needs

• retains provisions for support across the transition to school

• promotes availability of range of complementary, yetcoordinated, supports for families over the transition period

• facilitates the implementation of flexible and responsivesupport programs, adapted for family and community contexts

• recognises the key roles of a professional, multi-disciplinaryworkforce in supporting families at times of transition

• promotes transdisciplinary, multi-agency collaboration in child-centred and family focused practice

32

An effective transition to school for children is marked by a

positive approach to school and a sense of belonging and

engagement. Transition programs that focus on building

relationships between and among children, families,

educators and other professionals go a long way to promote

an effective transition. Through an effective transition

program, children become familiar with the school, their

peers and the adults they will meet at school. Schools and

teachers become familiar with children and families and are

well placed to implement programs and approaches that are

responsive to the individual children starting school.

When families feel valued and respected partners in their

children’s education and when schools reach out to engage

with families in positive ways, families tend to recognise

their role in promoting positive educational outcomes for

their children. As they engage with the school more, develop

strong relationships with school staff and develop a better

understanding of what happens at school, they are well

placed to regard school as a positive environment for their

children. When children see positive relationships between

their family and the school, their perception of school as an

important place is enhanced.

Recognising the importance of continuing, complementary

supports for families across the transition provides a great

impetus for professionals to work together. Shared

awareness and responsiveness to family strengths, as well

as needs, promotes a better understanding of the family

context as a whole and facilitates approaches that are family-

centred. In addition, such collaboration provides support for

professionals in their various roles.

Communities benefit when children and families view school

as a positive place to be and when education is regarded as

valuable, relevant and attainable. Children and families who

successfully engage with education help to build community

resources and networks – the essentials of social capital. As

families are supported to make decisions and adopt

strategies and approaches that promote the educational

engagement of their children, they also develop their own

skills and confidence – the capacity – to effect change.

The transition to school is a time of opportunity – a time of

change as children start school and as families seek and are

responsive to intervention. It is also a time of vulnerability,

where children and families move from known contexts and

supports to unknown contexts, often without continuity of

support and with the need to access different services,

different people and different experiences. Recognising the

strengths that children and families bring with them to

school, using this as the basis for promoting positive

engagement at school and maintaining a network of

coordinated support delivered by well-qualified professionals

will do much to build on the opportunities and reduce the

vulnerabilities encountered.

Conclusions

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

33

[1] Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a brief

questionnaire of behaviour, social and emotional

development. It can be completed by parents and teachers

of 4- to 16-year-olds (Goodman, 1997). The SDQ is based on

5 constructs:

• Emotional problems

• Conduct problems

• Hyperactivity/inattention

• Peer relationships problems

• Prosocial behaviour

Australian data has established the reliability of this measure

for Australian children in the early years of primary school

(Hayes, 2007).

[2] Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)

Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) were developed by

the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) from 2006 Census

data. The four indexes that have been developed explore

different aspects of socio-economic conditions by geographic

areas. Using the indexes, geographical areas are allocated a

SEIFA number which reflects the level of disadvantage for

that area, compared with other areas in Australia. The SEIFA

indexes are rankings of geographic areas using scores

generated from characteristics of people living in that area, as

reported on the Census. In each of the indexes, relative

disadvantage is associated with a low number.

It is important to note that SEIFA is a measure of the general

level of socio-economic disadvantage of all the people living

in a specified area – it is not a measure of individuals or

individual situations. All four indexes have been used in this

study to provide an overview of the communities in which

participant families reside.

The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD)

summarises information about the economic and social

resources of people and households within the area.

Measures such as low income, low educational attainment,

unemployment and unskilled occupations are included. A low

score (or decile) on this index reflects relative disadvantage.

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and

Disadvantage (IRSAD) uses data such as household income

and educational qualifications to construct a continuum of

relative advantage and disadvantage. A low score on this

index reflects relative disadvantage.

The Index of Economic Resources (IER) focuses on the

general level of access to economic resources of people and

households within an area. A low score on this index reflects

relative lack of access to economic resources.

The Index of Education and Occupation (IEO) reflects the

general level of education and occupation-related skills of

people within an area. It includes measures of qualifications

achieved, as well as a rating of the skill levels of specific

occupations and unemployment. A low score on this index

indicates relatively lower education attainment and

occupational status within an area.

[3] Australian Early Development Index (AEDI)

The Australian Early Development Index (Community Child

Health and Telethon Institute for Child Health Research,

2009) is a population measure of young children’s

development constructed from a checklist completed by

teachers in the first year of school. The checklist measures

five developmental domains: physical health and wellbeing;

social competence; emotional maturity; language and

cognitive skills (school-based); communications and general

knowledge. AEDI data is collated at the local area level. Data

are then reported as Community Profiles and AEDI maps.

The AEDI is a population measure, not a measure of

individual children in a given area.

AEDI results are reported as:

• a score for each developmental domain, ranging from

1(lowest) to 10 (highest); and

• as proportions of children considered to be ‘on track’,

‘developmentally at risk’ and ‘developmentally vulnerable’.

Endnotes

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

34

Ackerman, D., & Barnett, W. (2005). Prepared for kindergarten: What does"readiness" mean? National Institute for Early Education Research PolicyReport. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report5.pdf

Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1998). Facilitating the transition to firstgrade: The nature of transition and research on factors. Elementary SchoolJournal, 98(4), 351-364.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). 2039.0 Information paper: Anintroduction to Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), 2006. Retrievedfrom http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2039.0/

Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school andeducational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 39-62.

Beilharz, L. (Ed.) (2002). Building community: The shared action experience.Brisbane: Solutions Press.

Bentley-Williams, R., & Butterfield, N. (1996). Transition from earlyintervention to school: A family focussed view of the issues involved.Australasian Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 17 - 28.

Berg, I. K., & Kelly, S. (2000). Building solutions in child protective services.New York: Norton.

Bernard Van Leer Foundation (2007). Successful transitions: The continuumfrom home to school. Early Childhood Matters, 107, 23-28.

Birch, S., & Ladd, G. W. (1997). The teacher-child relationship and children'searly school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 61-79.

Blair, C. (2001). The early identification of risk for grade retention amongAfrican American children at risk for school difficulty. Applied DevelopmentalScience, 5(1), 37-50.

Bowes, J., Grace, R., & Hayes, A. (2009). Contexts and consequences:Impacts on children, families and communities. In J. Bowes, & R. Grace,(Eds.), Children, families and communities: Contexts and consequences (3rded), (pp. 3-21). South Melbourne: Oxford.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmentalprocesses. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of childpsychology: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp.993-1029). New York: Wiley.

Brooker, E. (2003). Learning how to learn: Parental ethnotheories and youngchildren's preparation for school. International Journal of Early YearsEducation, 11(2), 117-128.

Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic? What we can expect fromearly childhood intervention programs? Social Policy Report, 17, 1, 3-14.Retrieved from http://ww.srcd.org/Documents/Publications/SPR/Spr17-1.pdf

Broström, S. (1998). An investigation of 565 children's expectations of life inkindergarten class in school Paper presented at the CIDREE, Paris.

Burgess-limerick, T., & Burgess-limerick, R. (2011). Conversational interviewsand multiple case research in psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology,50(2), 63-70.

Centre for Community Child Health (2008). Rethinking school readiness:CCCH Policy Brief 10. Retrieved fromhttp://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/PB10_SchoolReadiness.pdf.

Centre for Community Child Health. (2009). Integrating services for youngchildren and their families. CCCH Policy brief 17. Available online:http://www.rch.org.au/emplibrary/ccch/PB_17_FINAL_web.pdf

Centre for Community Child Health and Telethon Institute for Child HealthResearch. (2009). A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia –AEDI national report, 2009. Australian Government: Canberra. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aedi.org.au

Choi, S-H. (2003). Cross-sectoral coordination in early childhood: Somelessons to learn. UNESCO Policy Briefs in Early Childhood No. 9. UNESCO.Retrieved from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137394e.pdf

Children in Scotland. (2008). Working it out: Developing the children’s sectorworkforce. Edinburgh: Author.

Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.) (2008). Research with children:Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family-school partnership: An opportunity topromote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review,33(1), 83-104.

Clarke, C., & Sharpe, P. (2003). Transition from preschool to primary school: Anoverview of the personal experience of children and their parents inSingapore.Transitions. European Early Childhood Education ResearchMonograph Series, 1, 15-24.

Corsaro, W. A., & Molinari, L. (2000). Priming events and Italian children'stransition from preschool to elementary school: Representations and action.Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(1), 16-33.

Cortis, N., Katz, I., & Patulny, R. (2009). Engaging hard-to-reach families andchildren: Stronger families and communities strategy 2004 – 2009.Occasional paper, 26. Canberra: Department of Families, Housing,Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/occasional/Documents/op26/default.htm

Davies, S. (Ed.) (2007). Team around the child: Working together in earlychildhood intervention.Wagga Wagga, NSW: Kurrajong Early InterventionService.

Davis, H., Day, C. & Bidmead, C. (2002). Working in partnership with parents:The parent adviser model. London: Harcourt Assessment.

Day, C. (2008).Working effectively to support families who have multipleneeds: Recent developments in the Family Partnership Model. Paperpresented at the 5th QEC 5th Biennial International conference, Melbourne, October.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005a). “You need to know how to play safe”:Children’s experiences of starting school. Contemporary Issues in EarlyChildhood, 6(1), 4-18.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005b). Researching with children: Insights from theStarting School Research Project, Early Childhood Development and Care,175(6), 507-521.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Transitions to school: Perceptions,expectations, experiences. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2009). Readiness for school: A relational construct.Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 34(1), 20-26.

Dockett, S., Perry, B., Kearney, E., Hampshire, A., Mason, J., & Schmied , V.(2009). Researching with families: Ethical issues and situations.Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(4), 353-365.

Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, andchild development. Child Development, 71(1), 188-196.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C.,Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement.Developmental Psychology 43(6), 1428-1446.

Dunst, C.J. & Bruder, M.B. (2002). Valued outcomes of service coordination,early intervention, and natural environments. Exceptional Children, 68(3), 361-375.

Einarsdottir, J. (2010). Children’s experience of the first year of primary school.European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 163-180.

Farrar, E., Goldfeld, S., & Moore, T. (2007). School readiness. ARACY topicalpaper.West Perth, WA: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.Retrieved from www.aracy.org.au

Fisher, K., Thomson, C., & valentine, k. (2006). The implementation ofFamilies First NSW: Process lessons from the first four years. AustralianJournal of Early Childhood, 31(1), 11-19.

Ghate, D., & Hazel, N. (2002). Parenting in poor environments: Stress,support and coping. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Goodman R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A researchnote. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.

Greene, S., & Hill, M. (2005). Researching children's experience: Methodsand methodological issues In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.), Researchingchildren's experience (pp. 1-21). London: Sage.

References

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

35

Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2002). Co-constructing transition in kindergarten andschool by children, parents and teachers. In H. Fabian & A.-W. Dunlop (Eds.),Transitions in the early years: Debating continutiy and progression for youngchildren in early education (pp. 64-75). London: Routledge.

Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2003). Successful transitions: Social competencieshelp pave the way into Kindergarten and school. In A.-W. Dunlop & H. Fabian(Eds.), Transitions. European Early Childhood Edcuation ResearchMonograph Series (Vol. 1, pp. 25-34).

Guenther, J., & Millar, P. (2007). Promoting successful collaboration in thecommunities for children context, (ARACY Topical papers). Perth: AustralianResearch Alliance for Children and Youth. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aracy.org.au/publicationDocuments/TOP_Promoting_Successful_Collaboration_in_the_Communities_for_Children_Context_2007.pdf

Guralnick, M. J., Neville, B., Hammond, M. A., & Connor, R. T. (2008).Continuity and change from full-inclusion early childhood programs throughthe early elementary period. Journal of Early Intervention, 30(3), 237-250.

Hauser-Cram, P., Durand, T. M., & Warfield, M. E. (2007). Early feelings aboutschool and later academic outcomes of children with special needs living inpoverty. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 161-172.

Hayes, L. (2007). Problem behaviours in early primary school children:Australian normative data using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41(3), 231-238.

Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impactof school, family and community connections on student achievement.Austin, Texas: National Center for Family and Community Connections withSchools. Retrieved fromhttp://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf

Hilferty, F., Redmond, G., & Katz, I. (2009). The implications of poverty onchildren's readiness to learn. Perth, Western Australia: Australian ResearchAlliance for Children and Youth (ARACY). Retrieved fromhttp://www.aracy.org.au/cmsdocuments/REP_the_implications_of_poverty_on_childrens_readiness_to_learn_2009.pdf

Holzer, P., Higgins, J., Bromfield, L., Richardson, N. & Higgins, D. (2006). Theeffectiveness of parent education and home visiting child maltreatmentprevention programs, Child Abuse Prevention Issues No. 24. Melbourne, Vic:National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of FamilyStudies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues24/issues24.html

Homel, R., Freiberg, K., Lamb, C., Leech, M., Hampshire, A., Hay, I., et al.(2006). The Pathways to Prevention project: The first five years, 1999-2004.Sydney: Griffith University and Mission Australia. Retrieved from:http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/13382/pathways-final.pdf

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Walker, J. M. T., Sandler, H. M., Whetsel, D., Green, C.L., Wilkins, A. S., et al. (2005). Why do parents become involved? Researchfindings and implications. Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 105-130.

Hoysted, H. (2010). Growing up like everyone else: The journey to school.Unpublished Honours thesis. Charles Sturt University.

Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2009). Parental involvement in children’sschooling: Different meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 24(4), 398-410.

Janus, M., Cameron, R., Lefort, J., & Kopechanski, L. (2007). Startingkindergarten: What do we know about issues affecting the transition toschool for children with special needs? Canadian Journal of Education, 30,628-648.

Japel, C. (2008). Factors of risk, vulnerability and school readiness amongpreschoolers: Evidence from Quebec. IRPP Choices, 14(16), 2-42.

Kane, G. A., Wood, V. A., & Barlow, J. (2007). Parenting programmes: Asystematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Child: Care, Health &Development, 33(6), 784-793.

Katz, I. (2007). Community interventions for vulnerable children and families:Participation and power. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 3(1),19-32.

Katz, I., Spooner, C., and valentine, k. (2007). What interventions are effectivein improving outcomes for children of families with multiple and complexproblems? Perth: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.Retrieved from http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/Report_ARACY_ComplexProblems.pdf

Lahaie, C. (2008). School readiness of children of immigrants: Does parentalinvolvement play a role? Social Science Quarterly, 89(3), 684-705.

Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2008). The context of school readiness: Socialclass differences in time use in family life. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.),Disparities in school readiness: How families contribute to transitions toschool (pp. 155-188). New York: Erlbaum.

Lee, J.-S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and theachievement gap among elementary school children. American EducationalResearch Journal, 43(2), 193-218.

MacKinnon, L. K. (1999). Trust and betrayal in the treatment of child abuse.New York: Guildford Press.

Magnuson, K., & Shager, H. (2010). Early education: Progress and promise forchildren from low-income families. Child and Youth Services Review, doi:101016/j.childyouth.2010.03.006

McTaggart, P., & Sanders, M. (2003). The Transition to School Project: Resultsfrom the classroom. Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of MentalHealth 2(3).

Maxwell, J. A., & Miller, B. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategiesin qualitative data analysis. In S. Nagy Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.),Handbook of emergent methods, (pp. 461-477). New York: Guildford Press.

Miedel, W. T., & Reynolds,A. J. (1999). Parent involvement in earlyintervention for disadvantaged children: Does it matter? Journal of SocialPsychology, 37(4), 379-402.

Moore, T. (2006). Evolution of Early Childhood Intervention Practice. Early Talk,Dec., 10-19.

Moran, P., Ghate,B., & Van der Merwe, A. (2004). What works in parentingsupport? A review of the international evidence. Home Office Report 574.Retrieved from http://www.prb.org.uk/wwiparenting/RR574.pdf

Munford, R., & Sanders, J. (2003). Making a difference in families: Researchthat creates change. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

New South Wales Department of Community Services (DoCS). (2007)Brighter Futures. Retrieved fromhttp://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/brighter_futures_guidelines.pdf

Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (2005). ‘As I got to learn it got fun’: Children’sreflections on their first year of school. Proceedings of the AustralianAssociation for Research in Education annual conference, Sydney. Retrievedfrom http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/per05571.pdf

Peters, M., Seeds, K., Goldstein, A., & Coleman, N. (2007). Parentalinvolvement in children’s educational survey. Research brief RB034. London:Department for Children, Schools and families. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RR034.pdf

Peters, S. (2003). "I didn't expect that I would get tons of friends ... more eachday": Children’s experiences of friendship during the transition to school. EarlyYears: Journal of International Research & Development, 1, 45-53.

Pianta, R., & Kraft-Sayre, M. (2003). Successful Kindergarten transitions: Your guide to connecting children, families, and schools. Baltimore MD: Paul H Brookes.

Prout, A. (2003). Particpation, policy and childhood. In C. Hallett & A. Prout(Eds.), Hearing the voices of children: Social policy for a new century (pp. 11-25). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of Americancommunity. New York: Touchstone.

Ramey, CT., Campbell, F.A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., &Ramey, S. L. (2004). Persistent effects of early childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers. In M. A. Feldman (Ed.), Early intervention: Theessential readings (pp. 75-103). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

from families with complex support needs Facilitating children’s transition to school

Reynolds, A. J., & Bezruczko, N. (1993). School adjustment of children at riskthrough fourth grade. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(4), 457-480.

Rosenkoetter, S. E., Hains, A. H., & Dogaru, C. (2007). Successful transitionsfor young children with disabilities and their families: Roles of school socialworkers. Children & Schools, 29(1), 25-34.

Ryan, R. M., Fauth, R. C., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Childhood poverty:Implications for school readiness and early childhood education. In B. Spodek& O. N. Saracho (Eds.), The handbook of research on the education of youngchildren (pp. 323-346). New York: Routledge.

Sektnan, M., McClelland, M., Acock, A., & Morrison, F. (2010). Relationsbetween early family risk, children’s behavioural regulation, and academicachievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.005

Shepherd, C., & Walker, R. (2008). Engaging Indigenous families in preparingfor school. Perth: Telethon Institute for Child Health Research For the AustralianResearch Alliance for Children Youth. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aracy.org.au/publicationDocuments/TOP_Engaging_Indigenous_Families_in_Preparing_Children_for_School_2008.pdf

Sims, M., Guilfoyle, A., Kulisa, J., Targowska, A., & Teather, S. (2008).Achieving outcomes for children and families from culturally and lingusiticallydiverse backgrounds. Perth: Australian Research Alliance for Children andYouth. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aracy.org.au/publicationDocuments/TOP_Achieving_Outcomes_for_Children_and_Families_from_Culturally_and_Linguistically_Diverse_Backgrounds_2008.PDF

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and at school: How workingclass children ‘succeed against the odds’. British Educational ResearchJournal, 36(3), 463-482.

Smart, D., Sanson, A., Baxter, J., Edwards, B., & Hayes, A. (2008). Home-to-school for financially disadvantaged children: Final report. Sydney The SmithFamily and Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved fromhttp://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/webdata/resources/files/HometoSchool_FullReport_WEB.pdf

United Nations (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York:Author. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc

Watson, J., & Tully, L. (2008). Prevention and early intervention update –trends in recent research. Sydney: NSW Department of Community ServicesCentre for Parenting and Research.

Watson, J., White, A., Taplin, S., & Huntsman, L. (2005). Prevention and earlyintervention: Literature review. Sydney: NSW Centre for Parenting andResearch, Department of Community Services. Retrieved fromhttp://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/eip_literature_review.pdf

Young, A., Temple, B., Davies, L., Parkinson, G., Bolton, J., Milborrow, W.,Hutcheson, G., & Davis, A. (2006). Early support: An evaluation of phase 3 ofearly support. DfES Research Brief No. RB798. London, UK: Department forEducation and Skills. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB798.pdf

Cover and report design: Imagecorp Pty Ltd

ISBN 978-1-86467-230-5